HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Agenda Packet
CITY OF RENTON
AGENDA - City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, July 13, 2020
Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Councilmembers are attending this meeting remotely
through Zoom. Audience comments will be accommodated through Zoom, but the public is
requested to sign up for such testimony by emailing cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or
jmedzegian@rentonwa.gov.
For those wishing to attend by Zoom, please (1) click this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87006639675 (or copy the URL and paste into a web browser) or
(2) call-in to the Zoom meeting by dialing 253-215-8782 and entering 870 0663 9675, or (3)
email one of the above email addresses or call 425-430-6501 by 10 a.m. on the day of the
meeting to request an invite with a link to the meeting.
Those providing audience comments will be limited to 5 minutes each speaker unless an
exception is granted by the Council. Attendees will be muted and not audible to the Council
except during times they are designated to speak. Advance instructions for how to address
the Council will be provided to those who sign up in advance to speak and again during the
meeting.
The proceedings will also be available to view live on Renton’s Channel 21, and streaming live
at http://rentonwa.gov/streaming.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and
the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for
further discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of July 6, 2020.
Council Concur
b) AB - 2671 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval to
execute Amendment No. 4 to the Real Estate Disposition and Development Agreement
(related to the 200 Mill Building) with Cosmos International Corp., in order to extend the
terms of the agreement until the earlier of October 15, 2020 or 10 days after Cosmos has
an opportunity to review final King County Library Systems (KCLS) lease terms.
Council Concur
c) AB - 2673 Community & Economic Development Department recommends adopting an
emergency ordinance to advance economic recovery for businesses in Renton, by
providing no-fee Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permits until Phase 4 of the
Safe Start Plan, or December 31, 2020 whichever occurs first; and allowance for Economic
Recovery Signs until December 31, 2020.
Council Concur
d) AB - 2675 Executive Department recommends approval of a resolution adopting the
updated King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Council Concur
e) AB - 2676 Public Works Administration recommends approval of the reorganization of
the department's Airport Section currently under the direction of the Transportation
Systems Division to a separate Airport Division, reclassifying the Airport Manager (salary
grade m33) to Airport Director (m38), and authorize the department to hire an Airport
Director at salary grade m38, Step E, depending on qualifications of the applicant.
Refer to Finance Committee
f) AB - 2661 Utility Systems Division recommends approval to execute an agreement with
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in the amount of $170,009 for work associated with the
WSDOT Limited Access Right-of-Way Runoff Impacts Characterization Study.
Refer to Utilities Committee
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be
held by the Chair if further review is necessary.
a) Finance Committee: Vouchers, City Clerk Reorg, 2020 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment,
BJA Coronavirus Emergency Funding, Stormwater Facility Retrofit Grant
b) Planning & Development Committee: Shoreline Master Program
7. LEGISLATION
Resolutions:
a) Resolution No. 4413: Adopt King County Hazard Mitigation Plan
b) Resolution No. 4414: Adopt 2021-2026 Business Plan to Strengthen Its Stand Against
Racism and In Support of Racial Equity
Ordinances for first reading:
a) Ordinance No. 5975: 2019/2020 Biennial Budget Amendment
b) Ordinance No. 5976: Shoreline Management Regulations Update
Ordinance for first and advancement to second and final reading:
a) Ordinance No. 5974: Emergency Ordinance Establishing Economic Recovery Permits and
Signs
8. NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more
information.)
9. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
4:30 p.m. - MEETING REMOTELY
Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21
To view Council Meetings online, please visit rentonwa.gov/councilmeetings
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF RENTON
MINUTES - City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, July 6, 2020
Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pavone called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present:
Ruth Pérez, Council President
Randy Corman, Council Position No. 1
Angelina Benedetti, Council Position No. 2
Valerie O'Halloran, Council Position No. 3
Ryan McIrvin, Council Position No. 4
Ed Prince, Council Position No. 5
(Councilmembers attended remotely)
Councilmembers Absent:
Ed Prince, Council Position 5
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER ED PRINCE. CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF PRESENT
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Preeti Shridhar, Deputy Public Affairs Administrator
Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator
Jan Hawn, Administrative Services Administrator
Ellen Bradley-Mak, Human Resources and Risk Management Administrator
Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator
Caílin Hunsaker, Parks & Trails Director
Maryjane Van Cleave, Recreation Director
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
Kristi Rowland, Organizational Development Manager
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Chief Ed VanValey, Police Department Administrator
Deputy Chief Kevin Keyes, Police Department
(All City staff attended remotely except City Clerk Seth)
PROCLAMATION
a) Designation of July as Parks and Recreation Month - July 2020: A proclamation by Mayor
Pavone was read declaring July 2020 to be Parks and Recreation Month in City of Renton,
encouraging all members of the community to join in this special observation. Parks & Trails
Director Caílin Hunsaker and Recreation Director Maryjane Van Cleave accepted the
proclamation with appreciation.
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
PROCLAMATION. CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING
a) Graves Annexation (File No. A-19-001): This being the date set and proper notices having
been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Pavone opened
the public hearing to consider the 60% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings
for the proposed Graves Annexation.
Long Range Planning Manager Angie Mathias reported that the proposed Graves Annexation
site is located at the eastern portion of City limits in the East Plateau Community Planning
Area, and bordered to the north by SE 128th St (NE 4th St), to the east at 162nd Ave SE, to the
south by parcel lines and SE 130th St, and to the west by 158th Ave SE. She noted that the
area has no regulated slopes or streams, and no wetlands in close proximity to the annexation
area. Ms. Mathias also reported that if the site were to be annexed the fire authority, utilities,
and school district would remain unchanged.
Reviewing the site’s zoning, Ms. Mathias stated that the area is designated in King County’s
Comprehensive Plan as Urban Residential Low with R‐4 zoning. She reported that the City has
designated the site as Residential Low Density which provides the City with the option to zone
it as Resource Conservation (RC) allowing one dwelling unit per 10 acres, R‐1 allowing one
dwelling unit per acre, or R‐4 allowing four dwelling units per acre. She specified that this site
was pre‐zoned in 2007 with R‐4 zoning. Ms. Mathias reported that currently there are 15
dwellings on the site with an estimated 36 residents. It is estimated there could be a total of
ten additional dwelling units with an estimated 24 additional residents. If annexed, a
conservative estimate of the fiscal impacts are that there would be a 3.5% annual cost
increase and a 2.5% annual revenue increase.
Concluding, Ms. Mathias stated the proposed annexation is generally consistent with City
annexation policies and Boundary Review board objectives, and the City’s best interests and
general welfare would be served by this annexation. She recommended that Council accept
the petition and authorize staff to forward this annexation package to the King County
Boundary Review Board.
Public comment was invited.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Terry Defoor, Seattle, explained that he is the petitioner and encouraged Council to
support the annexation proposal.
Adi Mandvilli, King County, asked if the City was going to be installing parks and trails
in or near this area if the annexation is approved.
There being no further comment it was
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY MCIRVIN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. CARRIED.
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY MCIRVIN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 60% DIRECT
PETITION TO ANNEX FOR THE GRAVES ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
FORWARD THE ANNEXATION PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD.
CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
City Clerk Jason Seth reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City’s recent
progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2020 and
beyond. Items noted were:
The City of Renton is distributing face masks free to residents to help combat the
spread of COVID-19. Distribution will take place every Wednesday and Thursday
through the end of July or for as long as supplies last. Mask distribution will take place
at Renton Community Center (1715 Maple Valley Hwy) from 4 to 6 p.m. on
Wednesdays and from 9 to 11 a.m. on Thursdays. Residents are asked to drive to the
building’s main entrance and each vehicle will receive two (2) five-mask packets.
There will be no proof of residence required and we ask that you only pass through
once. Renton seniors picking up lunches at the Renton Senior Activity Center as part
of the senior lunch program will also receive masks.
Renton’s annual Water Quality Report was published June 30 and may be found at
www.rentonwa.gov/waterquality. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires that
water utilities provide an annual Consumer Confidence Report. In this report, water
utility customers can read about their water source and treatment, how the city
complies with strict water standards, and learn water saving techniques.
Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in
occasional street closures.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Diane Dobson, Renton, speaking as the CEO of the Renton Chamber of Commerce,
expressed appreciation to Community and Economic Development staff for assisting
local businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. She also thanked the City for supporting
local businesses in regards to King County’s de-intensification site located at the Red
Lion hotel.
Nate Mills, Renton, requested data regarding police use of force, discipline actions,
and other related information so that he could build a database that could quantify
factual information regarding the department’s actions.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Tamey Gall, Renton, agreed with Mr. Mills’ comments and expressed an interest to
assist with this idea. Councilmember Corman encouraged residents to email the City
regarding police issues so that Council could hear those comments and discuss the
issues at the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
Krysta Strasbaugh, Renton, provided information regarding anti-racism and trauma
informed practices. She also noted that real change means freeing ourselves from
historically white supremacist institutions, and urged council to include anti-racism
and trauma informed practices in their next discussion on police practices.
Jacob Hyland, Renton, remarked that he has breathing issues and asked if there were
ways to address his health concerns in regards to the mandatory mask-wearing policy.
He also stated, in response to the earlier comments on police reform that he
understands that racism is terrible, but would like to make sure that police show up if
he calls 9-1-1. Mayor Pavone remarked that he should check with state or public
health agencies to see if he qualifies for an exemption to the mask-wearing policy.
Winter Cashman, Renton, voiced opposition to the City using permitting and building
codes against the Red Lion hotel that is housing homeless persons during the COVID-
19 crisis. He remarked that Renton is not being inclusive by trying to exclude this
community of people.
Erica Conway, Renton, noting that she is African American and has an African
American son, expressed concern about police practices in Renton. She asked if
anyone in the City had reached out to the local NAACP chapter to ask for assistance
with police reforms.
Joseph Todd, Renton, asked why the presentation given by the Police Chief at the
Committee of the Whole meeting did not include attainable goals and targets. He also
remarked that Renton needs a Citizen’s Oversight Committee.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the Consent Agenda were adopted with one motion, following the listing. Council
President Pérez removed Item 7.f for separate consideration.
a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of June 22, 2020. Council Concur.
b) AB - 2668 Administrative Services Department recommended adopting an ordinance to
amend the 2019/2020 Biennial Budget in the amount of $(11,881,437), with the total
amended budget to be $833,690,676 for the biennium, and approve an amendment to the
2019/2020 Fee Schedule. Refer to Finance Committee.
c) AB - 2672 Community & Economic Development Department recommended approval and
ratification of the Standstill Agreement with DevCo in order to attempt, in good faith, to
establish a Development Agreement for the Solera project. Council Concur.
d) AB - 2674 Community & Economic Development Department submitted information
regarding required implementation of floodplain management measures consistent with new
county-wide Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that become
effective on August 19, 2020. This will require amendments to the Renton Municipal Code
(RMC). A recommendation regarding proposed code changes will be provided to Council
following a review by the Planning Commission. Refer to Planning Commission and Planning
& Development Committee.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
e) AB - 2667 Police Department requested authorization to execute the BJA FY 20 Coronavirus
Emergency Supplemental Funding Program with the U.S. Department of Justice, to receive
$100,954 in grant funds for the procurement of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE),
cleaning supplies, and other various equipment and supplies if they contribute to the
prevention, preparation, or response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Refer to Finance
Committee.
g) AB - 2669 Utility Systems Division requested authorization to execute the Water Quality Grant
Agreement WQC-2020-Renton-00016 with the Department of Ecology to accept $187,500 in
grant funds for the Stormwater Facility Retrofit Study project. Refer to Finance Committee.
h) AB - 2670 Utility Systems Division recommended approving the Application
Resolution/Authorization, which is necessary to apply for a $412,500 grant (with a $137,500
City match) for a Brian Abbot Fish Barrier Removal Board grant, to assist with the design of
the removal of the Panther Creek fish barrier at the Talbot Road South crossing. Council
Concur.
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR TO APPROVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA, MINUS ITEM 7.f. CARRIED.
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION - ITEM 7.f.
f) AB - 2666 Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Local Agency
Agreement Supplement No. 1 to CAG-19-340, with the Washington State Department of
Transportation, for the obligation of an additional $1 million in grant funds (in exchange for
local funds) for the Williams Ave S and Wells Ave S Conversion project, and approval of all
subsequent agreements necessary to accomplish the authorized funding reassignment of the
$1 million in local funds from the Williams Ave S and Wells Ave S Conversion project to the
SW 43rd St Pavement Preservation project. Refer to Finance Committee.
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR TO APPROVE ITEM
7.f. AS COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED.
LEGISLATION
Resolution:
a) Resolution No. 4412: A resolution was read authorizing the submission of an application for
grant funding assistance for a Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board Project to the
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as established by RCW 77.95.160 for the Panther
Creek Barrier Removal - Talbot Road South Project.
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
READ. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
Please see the attached Council Committee Meeting Calendar.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
July 6, 2020 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY PÉREZ, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED.
TIME: 8:03 P.M.
Jason A. Seth, MMC, City Clerk
Jason Seth, Recorder
06 Jul 2020
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Council Committee Meeting Calendar
July 06, 2020
July 13, 2020 Monday
2:00 PM Utilities Committee, Chair O’Halloran - VIDEOCONFERENCE
1. Emerging Issues in Utilities
3:00 PM Finance Committee, Vice Chair Văn – VIDEOCONFERENCE
1. 2020 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment and Fee Schedule Update
2. City Clerk Office Reorganization
3. BJA Coronavirus Emergency Funding
4. Stormwater Facility Retrofit Grant
5. Vouchers
4:15 PM Planning & Development Committee, Chair Corman – VIDEOCONFERENCE
1. Shoreline Master Program
2. Docket #15
3. 2020 Flood Insurance Rate Maps Adoption
4. Housing Action Plan
5. Emerging Issues in CED
5:30 PM Committee of the Whole, Chair Pérez – VIDEOCONFERENCE
1. COVID-19 Impacts Update
2. Police Department Policy and Community Engagement (Continued)
7:00 PM Council Meeting - VIDEOCONFERENCE
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
AB - 2671
City Council Regular Meeting - 13 Jul 2020
SUBJECT/TITLE: Amendment No. 4 to Real Estate Disposition and Development
Agreement; 200 Mill Ave S
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development Department
STAFF CONTACT: Cliff Long / Lynne Hiemer, Director, CED, Economic Development
EXT.: Cliff -425-757-2649 / Lynne 206-399-6454
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
This amendment has no fiscal impact.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
On August 5, 2019, the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Real Estate Disposition and
Development Agreement with Cosmos International Corp. for the 200 Mill Avenue S property. On November 18, 2019,
the City Council approved an amendment extending the initial Feasibility Period by 90 days.
Amendment 2 was approved by City Council on February 10, 2020, extending the Feasibility Period until April 16, 2020
and extending the closing date and other milestone dates by an equivalent number of days. The Feasibility Period was
extended from the original 90 dayperiod.
Amendment 3 was approved by City Council on April 13, 2020, extending the Feasibility Period until July 16, 2020 and
extending the closing date and other milestone dates by an equivalent number of days. The Feasibility Period was
extended from the original 90 dayperiod.
Additional time is necessary to work out the final details of site leases, and to review proposed changes to the scope,
scale and timing of the project proposed by Cosmos. Staff recommends that the Feasibility Period be extended until the
earlier of October 15, 2020 or 10 days after Cosmos has an opportunity to review final KCLS lease terms. In addition,
staff recommends the closing date and other milestone dates be extended by an equivalent number of days . The
Feasibility Period has been extended from the original 90 dayperiod.
EXHIBITS:
A. Amendment 4 to Real Estate Disposition and Development Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Real Estate Disposition and Development
Agreement with Cosmos International Corp.
AGENDA ITEM #5. b)
AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO
REAL ESTATE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[200 Mill Avenue]
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO REAL ESTATE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is entered into by and between THE CITY OF RENTON, a
Washington municipal corporation ("Seller" or “City”), and COSMOS INTERNATIONAL CORP., a
Washington corporation ("Buyer").
RECITALS:
A.Seller and Buyer entered into a certain Real Estate Disposition and Development Agreement dated
August 20, 2019 (“Agreement”), concerning the purchase, sale and development of the real property
described Chicago Title Insurance Company Commitment No. 193379-SC.
B.Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Feasibility Period.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, which
each of the parties hereby acknowledges as adequate and sufficient consideration, Buyer and Seller hereby
agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used herein without further definition have the meanings set forth
in the Agreement.
2. Feasibility Period. The definition of “Feasibility Period” set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement is
deleted and the following substituted in lieu thereof:
"Feasibility Period" means the period commencing on the Effective Date and continuing
through the earlier of October 16, 2020 or ten (10) business days after the City presents the
Buyer with an executed Library Lease Amendment.
3. Milestones. Section 6.3 of the Agreement is modified to provide that the Milestone Deadline for
each of Project Milestones 3-9 is extended by a number of days equal to (i) the total number of days
comprising the Feasibility Period (as extended by this Amendment 4) less (ii) ninety (90) days.
4. Closing Date. The definition of “Closing Date” set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement is
modified to extend the Closing Date by a number of days equal to (i) the total number of days comprising
the Feasibility Period (as extended by this Amendment 4) less (ii) ninety (90) days.
5. Ratification. Except as modified and amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full
force and effect and as originally executed.
6. Execution. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. The parties agree to accept a
digital image of this Amendment, as executed, as a true and correct original and admissible as best
evidence for the purposes of state law, state rules of civil procedures, Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, and
like rules, statutes and regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the day and
year set forth opposite their respective signatures below.
AGENDA ITEM #5. b)
2
BUYER:
COSMOS INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
a Washington corporation
By: ______________________________
Its: ______________________________
Date: July ___, 2020
SELLER:
CITY OF RENTON,
a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Washington
By: ______________________________
Its: Mayor
Date: July ___, 2020
Attest
_____________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Approved as to Legal Form
By: __________________________
Shane Moloney
City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM #5. b)
AB - 2673
City Council Regular Meeting - 13 Jul 2020
SUBJECT/TITLE: Emergency Economic Recovery Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development Department
STAFF CONTACT: Jennifer Henning, Acting CED Administrator
EXT.: 7286
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
CED requests adoption of an emergency ordinance to advance economic recovery for businesses in Renton in
response to the phased opening of commercial businesses following the Covid-19 declared public health
emergency. The ordinance would allow for the temporary use of the right-of-way and other outdoor areas
such as surface parking lots for business operations including sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick -up, and additional
outdoor restaurant seating areas, with a no -fee Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit, until
Phase 4 or December 31, 2020 of the Governor’s Safe Start Plan (whichever occurs first). And further, the
ordinance would allow for businesses to display Economic Recovery Signs including temporary A -Frame and
Event signs without a permit or fee until December 31, 2020.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
B. Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the ordinance to adopt an emergency ordinance to advance economic recovery for businesses in
Renton, by providing for a no-fee Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit until Phase 4 of the Safe
Start Plan, or December 31, 2020 whichever occurs first, and allowance for Economic Recovery Signs until
December 31, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 13, 2020
TO: Ruth Perez, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA: Armondo Pavone, Mayor
FROM: Jennifer Henning, Acting CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Jennifer Henning, Acting CED Administrator
SUBJECT: Emergency Economic Recovery Ordinance
ISSUE:
Should Council approve an emergency ordinance to advance economic recovery for
businesses in Renton, allowing for the temporary use of the right-of-way and other
outdoor areas such as surface parking lots for business operations including sidewalk
sales, sidewalk pick-up, and additional outdoor restaurant seating areas, with a no-fee
Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit, until Phase 4 or December 31, 2020
of the Governor’s Safe Start Plan (whichever occurs first)? And further, should the
Council allow for businesses to display Economic Recovery Signs including temporary A-
Frame and Event signs without a permit or fee until December 31, 2020?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the emergency ordinance.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Businesses in Renton have been severely economically impacted by the limitations to
operate during the Covid-19 pandemic. Phased reopening has allowed for reduced
numbers of customers in businesses and reduced capacity in restaurant-related
businesses. Since Phase 1, restaurants been able to provide pick-up/take-away orders,
and Phase 2 of the Governor’s ‘Safe Start’ reopening plan is allowing eating and drinking
establishments to offer table service, albeit in a reduced capacity. In order to protect
the health of the public and reduce the risk of exposure to the coronavirus, Phase 2
limits table size, and requires minimum spacing and seating capacity. Phase 3 allows
increased capacity, however, pre-pandemic capacity is not achieved until Phase 4. King
County is currently in Phase 2. Reopening is helping businesses and the community
return to normal; however, the limitations on business and restaurant seating capacity
does not allow for a return to pre-pandemic revenues.
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
Ruth Perez, Council President
Page 2 of 2
July 13, 2020
In order to increase customer capacity and therefore revenues in Renton businesses,
and help more staff return to work, many jurisdictions are allowing the temporary use
of the right-of-way (sidewalk and curbside parking areas), or private property including
surface parking areas, for sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up of goods, and outdoor dining
service. The reduced capacity businesses and restaurants are allowed in Phases 2 and 3
will result in less parking demand, and the use of the outdoor areas for sales and dining
is well-timed to coincide with outdoor activities such as al fresco dining typically enjoyed
in the summer months. This emergency ordinance would allow the temporary use of
the right-of-way for sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up, sidewalk seating, streateries, and
parklets, as well as the use of private parking areas. The intent is to allow the use of
these areas until Phase 4 of Safe Start or until the end of 2020, whichever occurs first.
Spacing of displays, tables, and seating would need to consider required social
distancing to prevent exposure to Covid as well as clearances required by the Americans
with Disabilities (ADA) standards.
A no-fee Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit from the City would be
required. Applicants would submit a diagram to the City indicating the location and
type of parking spaces temporarily displaced in private parking lots, or show the location
of the display or seating on sidewalks, or in curbside parking areas; adequate and
accessible circulation around outdoor business display and dining areas; and accessible
routes to restrooms. In addition, if canopies are being used, applicants would need to
comply with requirements of the Renton Regional Fire Authority, and requirements of
the International Building Code. An inspection would be performed by City staff prior to
operation. Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permits would be available
through the start of Phase 4 of the Safe Start plan or until December 31, 2020,
whichever occurs first.
The emergency ordinance also provides for Economic Recovery Signs, without a permit
or fee. These include A-Frame signs and temporary Event signs for commercial
businesses in order to assist businesses during recovery from the pandemic. This waiver
of permits and fees would be allowed through December 31, 2020.
cc: Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator
Cliff Long, Economic Development Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Acting Planning Director
Ron Straka, Utility Systems Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Holly Powers, Development Services Representative
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN
INTERIM ZONING CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE PHASED OPENING OF
BUSINESSES FOLLOWING THE COVID-19 DECLARED PUBLIC HEALTH
EMERGENCY; TEMPORARILY ESTABLISHING A PERMIT TO BE KNOWN AS AN
“ECONOMIC RECOVERY REVOCABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT” FOR BUSINESSES;
TEMPORARILY ALLOWING “ECONOMIC RECOVERY SIGNS” FOR BUSINESSES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, earlier this year, the World Health Organization announced novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) is officially a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency because of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Governor also declared a State of Emergency due to COVID-
19; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2020, the Mayor proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID-19;
and
WHEREAS, following recommended public health best practices, including social
distancing, is having significant negative economic effects on the national, regional, and local
economy, including businesses and workers in the Renton area who cannot work remotely,
including those related to restaurants and other businesses that provide or could provide
operations on right-of-way areas fronting such businesses; and
WHEREAS, as the business-related restrictions are relaxed by the State of Washington in
phases, including opening of restaurants and other businesses with reduced capacities, flexibility
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
in allowing use of outdoor areas, including some City rights-of-way, could help some businesses
during these challenging times; and
WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") includes several provisions identifying
different types of right-of-way permits, including RMC Section 4-8-120, RMC Chapter 9-2, and
RMC Chapter 9-17, which apply to the use of right-of-way for business operations such as
sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up, and outdoor restaurant seating; and
WHEREAS, establishing a new type of right-of-way permit to be known as an “Economic
Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit” which is similar to existing right-of-way permits but
does not carry a permit fee could assist businesses that are able to use public right-of-way and/or
their private parking lot areas in order to expand the area within which customers could be
served – in keeping with appropriate social distancing standards and other public health
guidelines – could help struggling businesses including restaurants survive and help keep the
employees who depend on the jobs that have been impacted and jeopardized by the coronavirus
shut-downs employed; and
WHEREAS, to assist in the recovery of businesses including restaurant-related businesses,
it is reasonable that this new Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit be available to
businesses for a temporary period, through December 31, 2020 or the date that the City enters
Phase 4 of the Governor’s Safe Start plan, whichever occurs first; and
WHEREAS, some businesses are relying on special events such as grand re-openings and
the signage associated with communicating that the business has reopened; and
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
WHEREAS, to assist in the recovery of such businesses, it is also reasonable for the City to
temporarily allow signs to be known as “Economic Recovery Signs” in the form of A-Frame Signs
and Event Signs, as further specified in this ordinance, through December 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for an interim zoning
control ordinance to establish the Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of Way Permit and to
establish and allow Economic Recovery Signs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject of this ordinance complies with the
Governor’s Proclamation 20-28, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. The above recitals are adopted as findings of fact in support of the interim
controls adopted herein pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, and are found to be
true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. As an interim zoning control, Council hereby temporarily establishes a new
permit to be known as an Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of Way Permit in the City of
Renton. Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permits shall be:
(1) Available to businesses seeking to use the public right-of-way fronting their businesses
and/or their private parking lots abutting their businesses to expand the area within which
customers are served, such as for sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up, and/or outdoor restaurant
seating. Obtaining an Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit for such uses shall not
excuse a business from complying with applicable public health requirements and guidelines,
including social distancing; and
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
(2) In effect from the date of issuance through December 31, 2020 or the date that the
City enters Phase 4 of the Governor’s Safe Start plan, whichever occurs first; and
(3) Subject to the same application and review process as a revocable right-of-way permit
issued under RMC 4-8-120 and RMC Chapter 9-2, except that no application fee or permit fee
shall be required; and
(4) Subject to leasehold excise tax to the same extent as a revocable right-of-way permit
issued under RMC 4-8-120 and RMC Chapter 9-2.
SECTION III. As an interim zoning control, Council hereby temporarily establishes a new
sign type to be known as an Economic Recovery Sign in the City of Renton. Economic Recovery
Signs shall be:
(1) Allowed for businesses to advertise economic recovery-related events such as grand
re-openings or expanded services or capacities; and
(2) Allowed in the form of A-Frame Signs and Event Signs, as further specified below; and
(3) If an A-Frame Sign, subject to the following standards and requirements drawn from
RMC 4-4-100.J.5:
a. Number:
i. Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: Only one of these signs is
permitted per business per street frontage.
ii. Elsewhere in the City: One of these signs is permitted per business per
street frontage and, in addition, an additional sign is permitted to be located
abutting the business and building to which the sign relates.
b. Location Requirements:
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
i. Permitted Location:
(1) Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: A-frame signs must be
placed against the building and business to which the sign relates.
(2) Elsewhere in the City: A-frame signs may be located on the
public sidewalk abutting the business site and/or within the
landscaping area on or abutting the business site, however, A-frame
signs cannot be placed in the landscape strip between the curb and
outer edge of the public sidewalk. Additionally, for businesses
located within shopping centers, an additional A-frame sign may be
placed against the building and business to which the sign relates.
ii. Pedestrian Clearance: A minimum of four feet (4') of unobstructed
sidewalk area between the outer edge of the sign and the street curb is
required.
iii. Clear Vision Area: No sign shall be located as to pose a danger and violate
the clear vision area specified in subsection RMC 4-4-100.C.6, Prohibited
Signs. Where a traffic vision hazard is created, the City may require a
modification to the height or location of a sign to the degree necessary to
eliminate the hazard.
c. Size: Signs shall be no larger than thirty-two inches (32") wide and thirty-six
inches (36") tall.
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
d. Construction Specifications and Materials: The sign must be professionally
manufactured of durable material(s). No lighting or attachments, such as balloons
are permitted.
e. Maintenance and Appearance: Signs must be maintained in accordance with
the provisions of RMC 4-4-100.D.3, Sign Maintenance Required, and subsection
RMC 4-4-100.D.4, Appearance of Signs.
f. Alteration of Landscaping Prohibited: No landscaping may be damaged or
modified to accommodate an A-frame sign. The City may require replacement of
any damaged landscaping pursuant to RMC 4-4-070.Q, Damaged Landscaping.
g. Removal upon Close of Business Required: A-frame signs shall not be displayed
during nonbusiness hours.
h. Proof of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement for Signs on Public Right-of-
Way: Before placing any such A-Frame sign, the business must provide the
Community & Economic Development Department’s Development Services
Division with (1) proof of general commercial liability insurance (certificate of
liability insurance) meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-100.L.4 and (2) a signed
hold harmless agreement that specifies that the owner of the sign will defend,
indemnify, and hold the City harmless for any loss, injuries, damage, claims or
lawsuit, including attorney’s fees that arise from the sign.
i. Confiscation of Signs: Signs that do not comply with these provisions may be
confiscated by the City; and
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
(4) If an Event Sign, subject to the following standards and requirements drawn from RMC
4-4-100.J.6:
a. [Intentionally omitted.]
b. Types of Event Signage Allowed: Any combination of the following types of
signage are permitted: balloons, pole/wall strung and wall-hung banners not
exceeding one hundred (100) square feet each in size, pole-hung banners not
exceeding twenty (20) square feet each in size, flags, inflatable statuary,
pennants/streamers, searchlights, wind animated objects, and other similar
advertising devices approved by the Development Services Division. Rigid portable
signs are also allowed provided the sign is a maximum of thirty-two (32) square
feet in area on one face per sign not exceeding six feet (6') in height. Rigid portable
signs are limited to one per street frontage outside the Automall.
c. [Intentionally omitted.]
d. [Intentionally omitted.]
e. Placement Limitations for Event Signs:
i. Roof: No sign or advertising device shall be placed on top of a roof or extend
vertically above the fascia of the building.
ii. Perimeter Street Landscaping: Event signage shall not be located within
required perimeter street landscaping; and
(5) Allowed without a permit and without a fee through December 31, 2020.
SECTION IV. The Mayor or his designee is authorized to implement any and all
administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
SECTION V. A public hearing will be scheduled and held within sixty (60) days of the
passage of this ordinance.
SECTION VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. The City Council declares an emergency for the protection of the public
welfare and to enable the purpose and intent of this ordinance to be accomplished. This
ordinance shall take effect immediately when passed by the City Council. The City Clerk shall
cause to be published a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary
shall consist of this ordinance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2020.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2020.
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:2115:7/8/2020
AGENDA ITEM #5. c)
AB - 2675
City Council Regular Meeting - 13 Jul 2020
SUBJECT/TITLE: King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and Renton Annex
Adoption
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur
DEPARTMENT: Executive Department
STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director
EXT.: 7725
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is a jointly created regional plan that includes
Renton’s updated Hazard Mitigation Plan in the form of an annex. This plan categorizes multiple hazards that
may impact Renton and the greater King County region, assesses the relative vulnerability of the region and
the city of Renton to these hazards, and identifies actions that may be taken to reduce the risk of future
damage and loss from those hazards. Public hearings have been held at the regional level, with Renton
Emergency Management staff in attendance. This regional plan has been pre-approved by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), clearing the way for local adoption. It will be adopted by King
County. It is now ready for adoption by the Renton City Council.
EXHIBITS:
A. King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
B. Renton Annex
C. Resolution
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution adopting the updated King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
2020-2025
King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Mitigation Plan Priorities: .................................................................................................................................. 10
Timeline ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Revisions from 2015 Edition ............................................................................................................................ 11
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapters ..................................................................................................... 11
Hazard Mitigation Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 13
Mitigation Planning Partner Engagement ....................................................................................................... 15
Jurisdiction Plan Annex Process ....................................................................................................................... 16
Review and Incorporation of Reports and Studies ........................................................................................ 16
King County Plan Update Timeline ................................................................................................................. 17
Support for Community Rating System (CRS) Communities ..................................................................... 20
Public Outreach Process .................................................................................................................................... 21
Continued Public Participation ......................................................................................................................... 26
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Program Capabilities ..................................................................... 27
Plan Integration ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Program and Policy Capabilities ....................................................................................................................... 31
Integration with Departments and other Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 35
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding .......................................................................................... 37
King County Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program ....................................................................... 41
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program ............................................................................... 41
Participation in CRS ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Regional Risk and Probability Summaries....................................................................................................... 43
Risk Assessment Overview .................................................................................................................................... 45
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 46
Data ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Vulnerable Populations and Population-Based Vulnerability ...................................................................... 49
Determinants of Population Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 49
Jurisdiction-Specific Risk Assessments ............................................................................................................ 52
King County Development Trends and Risk Trajectory .............................................................................. 53
Regional Risk Profile: Avalanche .......................................................................................................................... 56
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 57
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Regional Risk Profile: Civil Disorder ................................................................................................................... 62
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 63
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Regional Risk Profile: Cyber Incident .................................................................................................................. 68
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 68
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 70
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 72
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 75
Regional Risk Profile: Dam Failure ...................................................................................................................... 78
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
3
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 78
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 82
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 83
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 85
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 86
Full List of Dams That Impact King County ................................................................................................. 90
Regional Risk Profile: Earthquake ...................................................................................................................... 101
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 101
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 101
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 104
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 106
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Regional Risk Profile: Flood ................................................................................................................................ 119
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 119
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 120
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 123
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 127
Regional Risk Profile: Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 132
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 132
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 134
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 135
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 136
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 137
Regional Risk Profile: Health Incident ............................................................................................................... 140
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
4
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 140
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 141
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 142
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 144
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 144
Regional Risk Profile: Landslide.......................................................................................................................... 146
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 146
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 147
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 149
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 150
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 151
Regional Risk Profile: Severe Weather ............................................................................................................... 154
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 154
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 154
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 157
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 158
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 160
Regional Risk Profile: Terrorism ......................................................................................................................... 166
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 166
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 167
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 171
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 172
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 172
Regional Risk Profile: Tsunami and Seiche ....................................................................................................... 175
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 175
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
5
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 176
Tsunami Scenario Drivers ............................................................................................................................... 178
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 179
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 179
Regional Risk Profile: Volcano ............................................................................................................................ 182
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 182
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 183
Summary of Hazard Effects ............................................................................................................................ 185
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 185
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 186
Regional Risk Profile: Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 190
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 190
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 193
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 194
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 195
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 196
Hazard Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 199
Mitigation Plan Goals: ...................................................................................................................................... 200
Mitigation Plan Goals - 14 Determinants of Equity .................................................................................... 200
Mitigation Plan Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 201
Mitigation Plan Projects ................................................................................................................................... 202
Prioritizing Hazard Mitigation Projects ......................................................................................................... 202
Crosswalk with the Strategic Climate Action Plan ....................................................................................... 204
Ongoing Plan Maintenance and Strategy Updates ...................................................................................... 205
Plan Approval and Adoption .......................................................................................................................... 207
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
6
Mitigation Strategy Status Updates from the 2015 Plan ............................................................................. 208
2020 King County Hazard Mitigation Strategies ......................................................................................... 222
Reduce Flood Impacts to the Unincorporated King County Road System ............................................ 227
Increase Seismic Resilience of Bridges in Unincorporated King County ................................................ 228
Stormwater Outfall Erosion Hazard Inventory ........................................................................................... 229
Resilience in Design and Build of Critical Water Treatment and Conveyance Facilities ....................... 231
Landslide, Erosion, and Sedimentation Event Mapping ............................................................................ 232
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction.................................................................. 234
Sea Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities ....................................................................................... 236
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction.................................................................. 237
Control System Security and Performance ................................................................................................... 239
GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data ............................................................... 240
Emergency Communications Enhancements .............................................................................................. 241
Emergency Event Management System ........................................................................................................ 242
Flood Warning Program .................................................................................................................................. 243
Post-Flood Recovery Efforts .......................................................................................................................... 244
Home Elevations .............................................................................................................................................. 245
Home Acquisitions and Relocations .............................................................................................................. 247
Protect and Restore Natural Floodplain Functions ..................................................................................... 248
Flood Risk Mapping ......................................................................................................................................... 250
Public Information Flood Activities .............................................................................................................. 252
Flood Insurance Promotion ............................................................................................................................ 253
Enforce Higher Floodplain Management Regulations ............................................................................... 254
Manage Flood Protection Facilities ................................................................................................................ 256
Seismic Evaluation of King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center ......................... 257
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
7
Integrate ESJ into Mitigation, Response, and Recovery Activities ........................................................... 258
Seismic Lifeline Route Resilience ................................................................................................................... 260
Integrate Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Planning ....................................................................... 261
Engage Community Organizations in Emergency Management .............................................................. 262
Climate Integration Training ........................................................................................................................... 263
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training ........................................................................................................ 264
Dam Failure Risk and Impact Reduction ...................................................................................................... 265
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction ................................................................................................... 266
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Support .............................................................................................. 267
Public Assistance Grant Support .................................................................................................................... 268
Language Accessible Video Emergency Messaging..................................................................................... 270
King County Facilities Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Network ............................................................. 271
Medical Gas Seismic Detection & Emergency Shut Off ............................................................................ 273
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
8
Executive Summary
The King County Hazard Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan promotes programs and projects that partner
with communities to build a foundation of resilience before, during, and after disasters. Hazard
mitigation is the mission area of emergency management that argues life safety is not good enough. Disasters
are not foregone conclusions. Incidents will always occur, but their impact is within our ability to change
if we target investments in areas that will reinforce those areas most critical to our community, thereby
making us all more resilient.
For the 2020 Plan, we identify investments and opportunities to strengthen 14 determinants1 of equity
and social justice, areas the whole community has identified as necessary to make King County a welcoming
community where every person can thrive.
1. Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2. Access to Health and Human Services
3. Access to Parks and Natural Resources
4. Access to Safe and Efficient Transportation
5. Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6. Community and Public Safety
7. Early Childhood Development
8. Economic Development
9. Equitable Law and Justice System
10. Equity in Government Practices
11. Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12. Healthy Built and Natural Environments
13. Quality Education
14. Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
We can strengthen and support each of these areas through investments in better land use practices,
stronger infrastructure, healthy habitats and systems, improved accessibility, and individual and family
resilience. The hazard mitigation strategies contained in this plan will each be reported on biannually to
help provide updates on areas where investments would be most critical.
In addition to hazard mitigation strategies, this plan includes risk profiles designed to provide an
overview of the key priorities, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts of natural and human-caused
hazards. We examine risk in terms of property, the economy, natural systems, infrastructure systems,
government operations, and populations, with a focus on populations more likely to suffer losses or long
recovery times from a disaster.
1 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice. 2016. Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan. Accessed online on
11/13/19 from https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/strategic-plan.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
9
Finally, this plan lays out a process to identify and prioritize hazard mitigation projects over the long
term and to increase investment in communities that are more vulnerable to disasters. We do this by
taking a holistic approach to prioritization.
This plan was developed through the partnership of many county staff and local jurisdictions. The work
is a result of their commitment and input throughout the planning process.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
10
Introduction
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan promotes programs and projects that partner with
communities to build a foundation of resilience before, during, and after disasters. This plan update
reassesses risks and vulnerabilities to eight natural and seven human-caused hazards and develops
strategies to reduce risk from those hazards. In addition to a base plan covering King County as a whole,
each participating jurisdiction developed an annex that independently meets most FEMA planning
requirements. Each annex, plus this base plan, meets the planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR
201.6. In addition to King County, over 60 cities and special purpose districts developed plan annexes.
Mitigation Plan Priorities:
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee (Steering Committee) set the
following priorities for the 2018 plan update process.
Break down planning
silos and establish new
partnerships
Collaborate with jurisdictions to build integrated hazard mitigation strategies,
including around risk management, floodplain management, comprehensive
planning, equity and social justice, and climate change.
Provide more education
and training to partners
to prepare for FEMA
DRRA grants in 2020
In preparation for a tripling of federal grants for natural hazard mitigation
through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, beginning in 2020, work with
planning partners and county agencies to identify projects and project
champions. Build capacity among planning partners to identify vulnerability,
craft a mitigation strategy, communicate project benefits, and successfully
pursue hazard mitigation grant funding.
Conduct a robust public
outreach process
involving all planning
partners.
Implement a proactive outreach strategy focused hazard mitigation success
stories and hands-on demonstrations of effective mitigation projects, working
with the media to follow-up on stories highlighting Washington’s need for
more hazard preparedness and resilience.
Develop quality hazard
mitigation strategies and a
method to prioritize and
track them.
Work with planning partners to craft comprehensive hazard mitigation
strategies that are measurable, actionable, trackable, and identify specific
funding sources. Prioritize strategies in accordance with opportunity to
reduce risk and further county priorities.
Integrate equity and
social justice into our
understanding of risk and
vulnerability.
Work with King County departments to identify an appropriate way to
address population vulnerability. Include this information in the plan in a way
that is operationally meaningful and can support mitigation strategies that will
reduce risk to these populations.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
11
Integrate mitigation
planning and climate
preparedness
Fully integrate with the update process for the Strategic Climate Action Plan.
Integration includes participation in workgroups and shared strategies that
increase climate and hazard resilience.
Timeline
February-May 2019:
Begin planning process
Meet with each of the 60+ jurisdictions participating in this plan update.
Convene the steering committee. Draft plan format and begin GIS analysis.
Begin outreach strategy. Develop first drafts of the risk assessment.
June-September: Conduct
public outreach
Work with partners on community outreach; conduct media outreach;
conduct mitigation strategy development workshops with planning partners.
October-December Review the plan and submit to FEMA.
January-April, 2020 Complete revisions and adopt the plan prior to expiration on April 30, 2020.
Revisions from 2015 Edition
The 2020 plan was fully rewritten and reformatted to reflect updated priorities and a greater emphasis on
hazard mitigation strategies. The most substantive change is to those strategies, which are formatted in
an action-plan style, consistent with the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. With the
change to mitigation strategies, the method of reporting has also been updated.
The risk assessments in this edition have been shortened and refocused to better support the intended
audience - emergency managers who are called upon to plan for and respond to these hazards. The
information is largely taken from the 2016 Hazard Inventory and Risk Assessment and the 2018 FEMA
RiskMAP Risk Report.
The capabilities assessment in this edition has been modified to focus on the relationship between
programs, plans, and policies that could support mitigation and the hazard mitigation plan and program.
This change will help the plan better reflect how each capability supports mitigation instead of just listing
potential capabilities. A similar process was used to document potential sources of funding.
This plan is written to meet or exceed the relevant elements of the Emergency Management Standard
(ANSI standard) by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP).
The number of participating jurisdictions increased from the 2015 update. In 2015, 53 jurisdictions
participated in the plan. For this update, over 60 jurisdictions participated in the planning process and at
least 50 are expected to submit complete annexes for FEMA approval.
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapters
The base plan satisfies all requirements for King County plus many of the planning requirements for
local planning partners. The plan is organized as follows.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
12
Planning Process: The planning process section corresponds roughly to Element A in the FEMA
Mitigation Plan Review Guide and includes information on the planning process, including public
outreach, meetings, and the planning timeline.
Capabilities Assessment and King County Hazard Mitigation Program: The capabilities chapter meets
requirements associated with coordinating the hazard mitigation program with other entities as well as
information on available funding.
Risk Assessment: The risk assessment chapters include profiles of each profiled natural and human-
caused hazard. These profiles are brief and are designed to provide an overview to emergency managers
and other users of this plan. This section meets the requirements of Element B in the FEMA Mitigation
Plan Review Guide.
Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Hazard mitigation strategies are the key deliverable of this plan and include
information on how strategies are identified, developed, and prioritized. This section meets most of the
requirements in Element C of the FEMA Mitigation Plan Review Guide.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
13
Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
King County’s 2019 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) was developed with input of a multi-
agency, multi-jurisdictional steering committee. The Steering Committee supervised the writing of the
plan and was consulted for final decisions made by the King County Emergency Management Planning
Team. The process was led by King County Emergency Management, which facilitated both the internal
county process and supported individual city planning efforts. Individual departments developed their
own strategies internally and then socialized the strategies with the other county participants.
Steering Committee Members
Name Email Organization Focus Area
Lara Whitely-
Binder lwbinder@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Climate Preparedness
Specialist
Mitch Paine mpaine@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Floodplain
Management
Program Manager
Cecelia Hayes Cecelia.Hayes@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Executive Services
Equity and Social
Justice Program
Manager
Karen Wolf karen.wolf@kingcounty.gov
King County
Executive Office
Comprehensive/Land
Use Planning Policy
Analyst
Cynthia
Hernandez cynthia.hernandez@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Emergency
Management
Program Manager
Sean Catanese sean.catanese@kingcounty.gov
King County Risk
Management Risk Management
Andrew Stevens astevens@sammamish.us
City of
Sammamish Emergency Manager
Ellen Montanana emontanana@bellevuewa.gov City of Bellevue Emergency Manager
Jennifer Franklin jennifer.franklin@mercergov.org
City of Mercer
Island Emergency Manager
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
14
Janet Sailer janet.sailer@spwsd.org
Sammamish
Plateau Water
District Emergency Manager
Steve Moye smoye@ccud.org
Coal Creek Utility
District Manager
Janice Rahman janice.rahman@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
Recovery Program
Manager
Mike Ryan mryan@bellevuewa.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
N/E Zone
Coordinator
Sarah Miller sarah.miller@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management S Zone Coordinator
Jeffrey Linn jlinn@kingcounty.gov King County GIS GIS
Derrick Hiebert dhiebert@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
Planning Process
Facilitator, Plan
Author
The team met monthly to review progress and make key decisions about the direction of the planning
effort. These meetings were hosted by King County Emergency Management.
Steering Committee Meeting Topics
Month Topic
February 2019
Outline proposed planning process and timeline and approve plan and plan
annex templates.
March Identify public outreach sites and strategy
April Integrating equity and social justice into the mitigation plan.
May Integrating equity and social justice into the mitigation plan.
June Establish plan goals, priorities, and strategy prioritization method
July Workshop 2 – hazard mitigation strategies.
August Review capabilities assessment
September Review risk assessment
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
15
October Long-term mitigation plan monitoring and implementation strategy
November Review draft base plan and King County hazard mitigation strategies
January 2020 Submit plan to FEMA
March 2020 Incorporate FEMA revisions
April 2020 Receive notice of Approval, Pending Adoption from FEMA
June 2020 Plan adoption and final approval
In addition to the multi-jurisdictional steering committee, the King County Emergency Management
Coordinating Committee (EMCC) contributed to the plan update as the steering committee for the King
County-specific hazard mitigation strategies. This committee consists of every King County department
as well as representatives from the King County Executive’s Office and the King County Council. A list
of all EMCC members is available in the Capabilities chapter. The EMCC meets monthly.
Individual jurisdiction annexes were developed in partnership with King County, but with separate
internal steering committees. The members of each jurisdiction’s steering committee are documented in
each annex.
Mitigation Planning Partner Engagement
The King County portion of this plan focuses on unincorporated areas of the county. These areas
border, or are served by, cities, tribes, and special purpose districts, all of whom were invited to
participate in this plan update. For the purpose of interjurisdictional coordination, King County defined
‘neighboring jurisdictions’ as these partners since they are the entities most critical to effective
implementation of multi-jurisdictional mitigation projects and since many city residents receive county
services and visa-versa. In addition to coordination with these jurisdictions, King County maintains a
high level of engagement with neighboring counties, especially Pierce and Snohomish. The planning
team invited counterparts in Pierce and Snohomish to attend each of the planning workshops described
below. There are also multiple other concurrent planning efforts involving these counties, including the
Close Coordinated Terrorist Attack (CCTA) program and the Regional Catastrophic Planning (RCPG)
effort.
The planning process kicked off in November 2018 with a meeting and workshop to which all planning
partners were invited. At this workshop, participants learned about the process, expectations, and were
asked to provide commitment letters with billing rates to meet federal grant match requirements.
To support the more-than-60 planning partners, the planning team met individually or in small groups
with each jurisdiction to discuss the planning process and go over the planning requirements. These
meetings took place between February and May.
To supplement these meetings, King County hosted a webinar and two in-person planning workshops in
June 2019 (June 3, 10, and 27). During these workshops, the planning team presented updated
information on public outreach, plan integration, risk assessments, and strategy prioritization.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
16
In addition to planning assistance workshops, King County partnered with FEMA RiskMAP and
Washington State to offer three workshops on the identification of threats and hazards, the development
of mitigation strategies, and the process to successfully fund those strategies. The workshops were held
on December 13, 2018, July 25, 2019, and August 22, 2019. Approximately 70 attendees were recorded
at each. Invitees included representatives from all King County departments, all cities, most special
purpose districts, and other agencies and organizations such as the Port of Seattle and the Northwest
Healthcare Response Network.
Following the submission of the base plan in December 2019, King County will begin a second stage of
outreach targeting those jurisdictions who missed the original submission deadline and those who were
not previously involved. Among the second group, school districts will be proactively engaged and
offered assistance in developing annexes to the hazard mitigation plan.
Sign-in sheets for all outreach events are available upon request.
Jurisdiction Plan Annex Process
Jurisdictions may join the regional hazard mitigation plan at any time by submitting a letter of intent to
King County Emergency Management and completing the planning process and plan template. Each
plan can be unique, and jurisdictions may do more than what is required in the template; however, this
template is designed to help walk communities through the planning process in an accessible way.
Further details on how to conduct the process are available in the King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan. King County staff will provide technical assistance to planning partners, whenever
possible.
Review and Incorporation of Reports and Studies
In addition to the data sources outlined in the Risk Assessment section of this plan, the planning team
leveraged a number of existing and ongoing planning processes and other documents. More information
can be found in the Program Capabilities chapter of this plan.
• The Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) is a plan designed to assess the impacts of climate
change on King County and develop strategies to both reduce risk from climate impacts and
reduce King County’s contribution to climate change. The planning team for the RHMP
included the lead for the SCAP and participated in the SCAP.
• The State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan was used for data on hazards and for identifying
capabilities. Another contribution from that plan is the hazard mitigation strategy format, which
was copied and modified for use in the King County plan.
• The Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan was integral to establishing the hazard mitigation
plan goals and the process by which mitigation projects are prioritized.
• Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2050 lays out planning policies and guidelines for the
King-Pierce-Kitsap-Snohomish county area and is undergoing an update in 2019 and 2020. The
mitigation planning team reviewed and contributed to the planning process for Vision 2050.
• The King County Floodplain Management Plan is being updated and data from that planning
effort is included in sections of this plan referring to the NFIP, flood risk, and flood mitigation
strategies.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
17
• The Washington, DC Hazard Mitigation Plan (draft) was a source for inspiration for the
method of prioritizing mitigation strategies and conducting the risk assessment for vulnerable
populations.
• The 2018-2019 FEMA RiskMAP Risk Report for King County was reviewed for data and
mapping purposes as well as for information on historic disasters and potential mitigation
strategies.
• The 2019 King County Dam Inventory from the Washington State Department of Ecology and
guidance from the King County Dam Safety Program.
• The Clean Water and Health Habitat Initiative, uniting departments involved in health and
environmental resilience, was convened by the King County Executive and includes the hazard
mitigation program.
• The draft Regional Resiliency Assessment Program report for transportation for Western
Washington.
King County Plan Update Timeline
The following is a timeline of significant events and milestones for King County in the Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update.
Plan Update Timeline
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Plan Kickoff 11/28/18 Conducted a kickoff meeting for
the planning process, including
discussions of expectations and
the project timeline.
Designated county, city,
and special district staff
who are leading local
plan updates
Risk Assessment
Workshop
12/13/18
First workshop with FEMA
RiskMAP staff to socialize hazard
data and develop problem
statements.
Approximately 80
attendees including GIS
staff, county
departments, city
emergency managers,
and other program
managers with interest
in mitigation
Steering Committee
Meeting Kickoff
2/19/19 Outline proposed planning
process and timeline and approve
plan and plan annex templates.
Steering committee
Outreach Strategy
Meeting
2/22/19
Meet with staff to identify
outreach strategy
OEM Director,
Outreach Team,
Coordination Team
Steering Committee
Meeting
3/12/19 Identify public outreach sites and
strategy
Steering committee
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
18
Steering Committee
Meeting
4/30/19 Integrating equity and social
justice into the mitigation plan.
Steering committee
EMCC Meeting 5/1/19 Discuss planning process, DRRA
funding, and mitigation strategies
County departments
Steering Committee
Meeting
5/14/19 Integrating equity and social
justice into the mitigation plan.
Steering committee
Mitigation Technical
Webinar
6/3/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
EMCC Meeting 6/5/19 Mitigation strategy meeting
discussions and identify points of
contact in each agency
County departments
Mitigation Technical
Workshop
6/10/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
Steering Committee
Meeting
6/11/19 Establish plan goals, priorities, and
strategy prioritization method
Steering committee
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
6/18/19 Comments received included
concerns about mitigation of solid
waste facilities, whether or not
earthquake insurance makes sense,
and need for snow mitigation
following February snowstorm.
Residents from central
King County and the
Issaquah/Hobart/Maple
Valley areas.
Approximately 100
attendees.
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
6/25/19 Discussed concerns about impacts
to Enumclaw area from a
lahar/Mt. Rainier
Residents from
southeast King County,
predominately from
Enumclaw and nearby
unincorporated areas.
Approximately 100
attendees.
Mitigation Technical
Workshop
6/27/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/9/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
DES, FMD and KC
International Airport
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
19
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/11/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
DNRP
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/11/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
Local Services (Roads)
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/15/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
Local Services
(Permitting)
Hazard Mitigation
Workshop
7/25/19 Worked through the entire
strategy development process
from risk identification to
mitigation projects.
County and local
partners, approximately
75 attendees
Steering Committee
Meeting
8/20/19
Review mitigation capabilities
Steering committee
Mitigation Funding
Workshop
8/22/19 Worked through process of
developing a successful hazard
mitigation grant application
County and local
partners. Approximately
60 attendees.
Clean Water Healthy
Habitat Initiative
Workshop
9/4/19 Participated in a process to
coordinate mitigation planning
efforts with other environmental
quality, climate change, and hazard
reduction programs in the county.
60-100 attendees from
multiple county
departments, especially
DNRP.
Steering Committee
Meeting
9/16/19 Review risk and vulnerability
assessments
Steering committee
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
9/10/19 Residents looked at the hazard
information and discussed
strategies for protecting their
community from an earthquake. A
major concern is the likelihood
that the area will be isolated by an
earthquake due to liquefaction.
Dozens of residents
from the areas of White
Center, Highline,
Skyway, and Burien.
Critical Transportation
Workgroup
9/17/19
Discussed the establishment and
mitigation of lifeline
transportation routes for a post-
Cascadia scenario.
County departments,
local jurisdictions, and
state agencies
participated in the
workshop.
Steering Committee
Meeting
10/8/19 Review base plan and King
County mitigation strategies
Steering committee
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
20
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
10/17/19
Discussed flooding in the
Snoqualmie-Carnation-Duvall
areas.
Residents from the
northeastern portion of
the county, especially in
Snoqualmie, Carnation,
and Duvall
County Departments
Strategy Coordination
11/14/19 Meet with King County
departments to go over all the
mitigation strategies, eliminate
gaps, and ensure consistent
priorities.
County departments,
including OEM, FMD,
DNRP, PHSKC, KCIT,
DES.
Steering Committee
Meeting
11/12/19
Review draft base plan
Steering committee
Submit to WA EMD
and FEMA
12/15/19 Submit full mitigation plan to
FEMA for review
Planning Team
Support for Community Rating System (CRS) Communities
The hazard mitigation plan update process was also closely linked to the update for King County’s Flood
Hazard Management Plan. To receive credit, participating jurisdictions must follow the CRS process
outlined in the current version of the CRS Coordinators Manual, element 510. At a minimum,
jurisdictions wanting to receive CRS planning credit must have at least two participants in one of the
planning teams.
As such, a separate, parallel process was led by the King County River and Floodplain Management
Section. This process was integrated into the planning effort for the overall hazard mitigation plan. Three
meetings were held in addition to the regular mitigation planning meetings. The flood portion steering
committee consisted of the following members:
Committee Member Organization Key Role
Gwyn Berry City of Snoqualmie Floodplain Manager/Planner
Bob Freitag UW Institute for Hazard
Mitigation Planning & Research
Director
Elissa Ostergaard Snoqualmie Watershed Forum Salmon Recovery Manager
Scott Smith King County Permitting Division Senior Engineer
Monica Walker King County River & Floodplain
Management Section
Program Manager, White-Cedar-
Sammamish Basin
Ken Zweig King County River & Floodplain
Management Section
Program Manager, Countywide
Policy and Planning Unit
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
21
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Planning Meeting 1 10/10/19
Discussed the flood hazard
assessment.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Planning Meeting 2 10/30/19
Developed flood hazard mitigation
strategies.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Planning Meeting 3 11/6/19
Prioritize hazard mitigation
strategies and review draft risk
assessment.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Public Outreach Process
Public outreach during the plan update process is considered to be a critical part of hazard mitigation
planning. For this update, participating jurisdictions are asked to conduct two outreach events. One of
these events should be a meeting-style event and the other could be any event desired by the jurisdiction,
including workshops, fairs, neighborhood meetings, etc. Jurisdictions were encouraged to make the
meetings valuable to the community. Holding a separate, stand-alone meeting for the sole purpose of
this plan update was NOT required, especially if using an existing event, like a commissioner’s meeting,
could help expand public engagement and engage elected officials simultaneously. Jurisdictions were also
encouraged to partner with neighbors or special purpose districts serving their area for more effective
public outreach events.
To count as outreach for the hazard mitigation plan, meetings had to meet the following requirements.
1. Be advertised to the general public. You do NOT have to publish an ad in the paper. You can
use your newsletters, social media, press releases, and other mechanisms to conduct outreach.
2. Promote two-way communication between the public and the planning team.
3. Focus on hazard mitigation, resilience, risk-reduction, etc., for some significant part of the
event. The focus does not have to be solely on mitigation, and you do not have to refer to the
event as related to “mitigation planning;” however, the concepts of resilience, risk-reduction,
etc., should be discussed.
4. Be documented. This is very important. Please summarize both who attends and what they
contribute and make sure to include it in the plan.
County public outreach partnered with the Department of Local Services and other local jurisdictions to
ensure that events occurred throughout unincorporated areas as well as in incorporated areas served by
some county services. The unincorporated area events were part of Community Service Area (CSA)
Town Halls. These events are well-attended and well-advertised, with 60-100 attendees per meeting. This
outreach model, partnering with existing meetings and services, is designed to help put emergency
management and hazard mitigation in context. The work done in hazard mitigation is almost exclusively
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
22
carried out by non-emergency management entities. By partnering with other departments and using
outreach mechanisms where they would all be present, it may be possible to help demonstrate the role of
emergency management in the community and the partnerships that good hazard mitigation requires.
The following is an excerpt from the King County Department of Local Services newsletter that goes
out to nearly 8000 residents.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
23
King County Public Meetings
Date Location Summary Attendees
6/18/19
Greater Maple
Valley CSA
Comments received included
concerns about mitigation of solid
waste facilities, whether or not
earthquake insurance makes sense,
and need for snow mitigation
following February snowstorm.
Residents from central King
County and the
Issaquah/Hobart/Maple Valley
areas. Approximately 100
attendees.
6/25/19
Enumclaw/
Southeast King
County CSA
Discussed concerns about impacts
to Enumclaw area from a
lahar/Mt. Rainier
Residents from southeast King
County, predominately from
Enumclaw and nearby
unincorporated areas.
Approximately 100 attendees.
9/12/19
White Center
CSA
Residents looked at the hazard
information and discussed
strategies for protecting their
community from an earthquake. A
major concern is the likelihood
that the area will be isolated by an
earthquake due to liquefaction.
Dozens of residents from the
areas of White Center, Highline,
Skyway, and Burien.
10/17/19
Snoqualmie/
Carnation/
Duvall CSA
Discussed flooding in the
Snoqualmie-Carnation-Duvall
areas.
Residents from the northeastern
portion of the county, especially
in Snoqualmie, Carnation, and
Duvall
The Des Moines Farmers Market public outreach event hosted by the City of Des
Moines and including King County Emergency Management and Valley regional Fire
Authority.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
24
The following is a questionnaire
handed out at these events. Major
topics of discussion, and any
comments or feedback on the
plan and planning process, are
included in the summary table for
the public meetings.
King County Emergency
Management also joined several
locally-led events. For this, the
planning team developed a table-
sized 3D-printed topographic map
of the county with an aerial image
printed on it. The interactive, 3D
physical map was used to talk
about the county’s history of
hazards, flooding, climate change,
landslides, lahar zones,
liquefaction areas, and more.
The model was available for use
by local jurisdictions both with
and without county staff so that it
could be used to support a wider range of outreach activities.
Finally, in addition to in-person outreach, King County Emergency Management developed a website,
https://www.kingcounty.gov/hazardplan. The website explains the purpose of mitigation and provides
an overview of key hazards and examples of effective hazard mitigation. This website will be kept up for
at least the duration of the plan review.
Joint Public Meetings
Date Location Summary Attendees
7/16/19
City of
Medina
Presented to the City of Medina Emergency
Management Committee and other local
residents and led a discussion afterward. The
primary interest was on how residents could
contribute to mitigation and resilience goals
for their city. Residents in Medina will serve
as the steering committee for the mitigation
plan update and will help identify and
prioritize mitigation strategies based on at-
risk, high-priority community assets.
Community members,
elected officials, and
members of Medina
EMC. Approximately 20
people attended.
7/24/19
City of North
Bend
World Café workshop at the North Bend
Public Library
No attendees were
recorded at this event.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
25
8/21/19
City of
Kenmore
Presentation and hazard mitigation booth
with 3D map at a Kenmore Town Square
movie night. Spoke with approximately 25
people. The main focus of questions were
around which areas of the community were at
higher risk. Also collected feedback from
community members on their ranking of
Kenmore’s mitigation strategies.
Lots of children plus
community members
attended. Over 100
attendees estimated.
8/27/19
Cities of
Tukwila, Kent,
Covington
and SeaTac
Presented on county hazard mitigation efforts
and discussed countywide risks at a joint
public meeting at Fire Station 74 in Kent.
Major comments included questions about
how cities and the county are prioritizing
mitigation investments, comments on the risk
of fire from homes built very close together,
and questions about the restoration of water
in areas with unstable soils.
10-12 attendees, mostly
from Kent, spoke with
staff from their cities
and King County
Emergency
Management
City of Des
Moines
Hosted a booth at Des Moines Farmers
Market. Discussed the possibility of Des
Moines becoming an island after a major
earthquake. Discussed the vulnerability of the
waterfront relative to the lower-vulnerability
of the rest of the city. The City of Des
Moines and Valley Regional Fire Authority
were also present and completed surveys for
their mitigation plan annexes.
The booth was occupied
continuously by
residents from 10AM
until 2PM.
9/28/19
Cities of
Maple Valley,
Covington,
and Black
Diamond
Annual preparedness fair 3D map booth and
presentation. Spoke with dozens of residents
and several elected officials and shared
information on hazard risk and ways to
address hazard risk. Major comments were
related to length of time needed to reach
residents in far-flung areas following an
earthquake, especially given the response
times during the February 2019 winter
storms.
Hundreds of residents
from the area and cities
around Maple Valley.
Dozens stopped by the
booth.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
26
Residents examining the 3D hazard map at a North City Water public outreach event (Source: Diane Pottinger, North
City Water)
Continued Public Participation
King County and its partner cities already maintains substantial public outreach capabilities, focusing on
personal preparedness and education. Information on ongoing progress in implementing the hazard
mitigation plan will be integrated into public outreach efforts. The Community Service Area Town Hall
events led by the Department of Local Services are scheduled annually and provide a unique opportunity
to highlight mitigation successes. This will provide King County residents, already engaged in personal
preparedness efforts, with context and the opportunity to provide feedback on the county’s progress and
priorities in large-scale mitigation. In the vertical integration of risk-reduction activities from personal to
local to state and federal, it is important that the public understand how its activities support, and are
supported by, larger-scale efforts.
The outreach and mitigation teams will also continue to work with media and other agency partners to
publicize mitigation success stories and help explain how vulnerabilities are being fixed. When possible,
public tours of successfully-completed mitigation projects will be organized to allow community
members to see successful mitigation in action.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
27
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation
Program Capabilities
King County includes 39 cities, over 129 special purpose
districts, and large unincorporated areas. While each city and
special purpose district is responsible for its own hazard
mitigation efforts, King County supports these jurisdictions
through region-wide services and planning coordination,
including efforts associated with land use, emergency
management, and floodplain management. County
departments involved in hazard mitigation efforts include
Executive Services (facilities management, emergency
management), local services (permitting, roads), Natural
Resources and Parks (wastewater, landslides, floodplain
management, climate change), and the Office of the
Executive (planning).
As the lead agency for hazard mitigation, King County
Emergency Management (KC EM) engages partners to
promote and/or support mitigation activities. KC EM also
publicizes Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant opportunities
and provides technical support to develop applications and
administer awards. KC EM also serves on interagency
workgroups such as comprehensive planning, climate
adaptation, and transportation as a way of promoting
consistency in risk assessment and reduction priorities.
The focus of King County Emergency Management’s
hazard mitigation program is integration, including plan
integration, program integration, and
departmental/jurisdictional integration. Plan integration
helps ensure partners use the best available data and that
plan outcomes are supportive of a resilient future. Program
integration helps partners find fund sources and support
outside of their departments or programs. Department and
jurisdiction integration builds on the role the county EOC serves for response, engaging resources to
promote and implement the most effective, highest-priority hazard mitigation opportunities. In a large
county with dozens of partners, a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach is less effective at building
resilience. KC EM’s approach is to unify partners behind the vision of resilience laid out in this plan.
Plan Integration
When plans and planning processes are more integrated, it is possible to achieve greater impact through
clearer definition, smarter investment, partnerships, and innovation. Successful integration requires
Hazard Mitigation Program
Hazard mitigation is most effective
when implemented through a
systematic program that establishes
priorities and understands that
resilience requires system-wide
investments in mitigation.
Cohesive, comprehensive strategies
and the establishment of
partnerships are the core elements
of a program. Individual projects
matter, but are made more effective
by systematic, strategic
implementation.
In order to support this program,
King County Emergency
Management convenes multi-
agency committees, offers technical
assistance on federal mitigation
grants, supports partners in
planning and mitigation projects,
and maintains and updates the
King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
28
coordination between planning efforts and, especially, cross-participation in planning processes. The
goals of plan integration are to:
• Ensure consistency with jurisdiction priorities across all planning processes
• Leverage opportunities to further multi-benefit initiatives that are supported by multiple
planning processes
• Achieve common measures of success for outcomes
The hazard mitigation plan can benefit from integration with planning processes that:
• Prioritize and invest in infrastructure
• Regulate development
• Set strategic direction for programs
To other planning processes, the hazard mitigation plan brings risk and vulnerability information to help
prioritize projects and set development standards or regulations. The mitigation plan also comes with
potential funding for investments in cost-effective risk-reduction projects. On the other hand, the
mitigation plan depends on other plans and processes to implement many strategies. Since the mitigation
plan is not itself a regulatory or budgetary document, strategies identified in the mitigation plan are often
best implemented through those processes or programs.
There are many plans and planning processes within King County that impact hazard risk. These include
strategic plans, long-range plans, resource plans, and capital plans.
TITLE DESCRIPTION LEAD INTEGRATION
STRATEGY
Capital Facilities
Plans
Capital facilities plans identify and
prioritize large-scale projects.
Entities involved in this include the
King County Facilities Management
Division and the King County
Flood Control District.
Various • Integrate mitigation
strategies from
capital plans
• Encourage the use
of hazard
information to
prioritize capital
improvements
• Support county
departments with
funding gaps in
accessing Hazard
Mitigation
Assistance to
complete or expand
projects that are
identified as
important but are
unfunded or
partially funded.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
29
Clean Water and
Health Habitat
Strategic Plan
The CWHH Strategic Plan seeks to
establish a strategic alignment
across all plans that impact clean
water and healthy habitat in order
to achieve “greater impact through
clearer definition, smarter
investment, partnerships, and
innovation.” This process is just
starting, and it includes over 20
separate plans and programs.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Participate in plan
development.
• Align outcome
measures and
program
prioritization
methods
• Work through this
process to help
align mitigation
planning with other
planning in the
natural resource
sector, such as
forest health, solid
waste, and salmon
recovery.
Comprehensive
Plan
The King County Comprehensive
Plan is the long-range guiding
policy document for all land use
and development regulations in
unincorporated King County, and
for regional services throughout the
County including transit, sewers,
parks, trails and open space.
Executive’s
Office
• Encourage updates
to the critical areas
ordinance
• Provide feedback
and comments on
the plan
Comprehensive
Emergency
Management Plan
(CEMP)
The CEMP is for use by elected
and appointed County officials, and
King County government
department directors, managers and
staff in mitigating, preparing for,
responding to, and recovering from
disasters.
This plan is a product of
coordinated planning efforts
between King County Emergency
Management, County departments,
emergency management
representatives from various
political jurisdictions, and selected
private and nonprofit sector
interests. It meets the requirements
of WAC 118-30 and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) planning guidance for the
National Response Framework and
Emergency
Management
• The Hazard
Mitigation Plan
provides the risk
profiles that
support the
development of the
CEMP.
• The Hazard
Mitigation Plan is
also a component
(the mitigation
component) of the
CEMP.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
30
the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) compliance.
Equity and Social
Justice Strategic
Plan
The Equity and Social Justice
Strategic Plan is a blueprint for
action and change that will guide
the county’s pro-equity policy
direction, decision-making,
planning, operations and services,
and workplace practices in order to
advance equity and social justice
within County government and in
partnership with communities.
Executive’s
Office
• Follow guidance in
the ESJ plan for the
prioritization of
strategies
• Develop
information on
populations
vulnerable to
hazards and share
with ESJ planning
teams
Flood Hazard
Management Plan
The current (2013) King County
Flood Hazard Management Plan is
a functional annex of the
comprehensive plan. It outlines the
County’s approach to
comprehensive floodplain
management including land use
planning, flood mitigation efforts,
and flood protection facilities
management.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Work with
department
responsible for
floodplain
management to
write the flood risk
assessment.
• Work with local
CRS coordinators
to ensure the
mitigation plan is
worth the
maximum number
of points.
Strategic Climate
Action Plan
King County’s Strategic Climate
Action Plan (SCAP) is a five-year
blueprint for County action to
confront climate change,
integrating climate change into all
areas of County operations and its
work in the community. The SCAP
is King County’s blueprint for
climate action and provides a “one-
stop-shop” for county decision-
makers, employees, and the general
public to learn about the County’s
climate change goals, priorities and
commitments.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Inter-workgroup
participation
• Integrated
mitigation strategies
• Consistent risk
assessments
Strategic Plan for
Road Services
The Road Services Strategic Plan
lays out system needs and
anticipated service levels and an
asset management approach to
road maintenance and
improvement.
Department of
Local Services
• Integrate mitigation
strategies
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
31
Program and Policy Capabilities
With over 15,000 employees and dozens of departments and offices, King County has a tremendous
capability to implement mitigation projects. Mitigation efforts are underway throughout the county,
including such organizations as the Rivers and Floodplain Management Section of DNRP and the
Wastewater Treatment Division of DNRP.
The hazard mitigation planning process has engaged participants from across these program and policy
areas in order to establish a common assessment of hazards, identify potential mitigation strategies,
partnerships for future projects, and to assess county capabilities to implement mitigation projects. The
list below identifies King County policies and programs that support and implement hazard mitigation
and assesses the effectiveness of each. For state-level policies and programs that support hazard
mitigation, such as the Growth Management Act, please see the Washington State Enhanced Hazard
Mitigation Plan.2
The following table identifies the programs and organizations contributing regularly to hazard mitigation.
PROGRAM/POLICY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES LEAD
Building and
Development
Codes
Building and development codes are adopted and modified
from the 2015 IBC by Washington State Building Code
Council and King County. These codes help ensure that
new construction and substantial improvements meet
international standards, accounting for our hazard risk.
Department of
Local Services,
Permitting
Building and
Development Code
Enforcement
The Department of Local Services, Permitting Division is
the agency that provides land use, building and fire
regulatory and operating permits, code enforcement and a
limited number of business licenses for unincorporated
areas of King County. Other local jurisdictions provide
similar services within incorporated areas. The Code
Enforcement Section investigates complaints regarding
violations of King County Codes (KCC) related to zoning,
building, property maintenance, shorelines and critical areas
in unincorporated King County.
Department of
Local Services,
Permitting
Community Rating
System
The CRS program rewards communities that have
established exceptional floodplain management programs
and undertaken certain activities to reduce flood risk. King
County is one of the highest rated communities in the
country. The program provides NFIP policyholders in
floodplains with a discount of up to 40% on their
insurance.
DNRP
DLS
KCEM
2 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2018. “Potential Sources of Funding and Mitigation Capability.”
Accessed online on 7/12/19 from https://mil.wa.gov/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
32
Critical Areas
Ordinance
The critical areas ordinance requires the identification of
geologically-hazardous and frequently-flooded areas. These
areas must either be protected from development or any
development in these areas must be designed to account
for hazard risk.
Department of
Local Services
Equity and Social
Justice
King County has deep and persistent inequities – especially
by race and place–that in many cases are getting worse and
threaten our collective prosperity. Launched by King
County Executive Ron Sims in 2008 and formalized by
Executive Dow Constantine and the Metropolitan King
County Council via ordinance in 2010, Equity and Social
Justice (ESJ) is an integrated part of the County’s work and
is supported by the Office of Equity and Social Justice
since it was established in early 2015.
King County
Executive’s
Office, Office of
Equity and Social
Justice
Facilities
Management
Division
The Facilities Management Division (FMD) oversees and
maintains King County's real estate assets. The Major
Projects and Capital Planning section is tasked with
efficiently and effectively delivering large-scale projects in
alignment with the policy directives of King County
government, the facility needs of employees and the public,
and for overall service to the community. Part of this
includes the development of hazard-resilient facilities.
Department of
Executive
Services, FMD
GIS King County GIS provides analysis support, mapping, and
other data to all King County departments. This data is
valuable for hazard mitigation planning activities.
KCIT
Hazard Mitigation The hazard mitigation program works with partners across
county departments and local jurisdictions to coordinate
and promote hazard mitigation projects.
The program also coordinates applications to federal
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs and conducts
hazard mitigation planning for the county in partnership
with local jurisdictions and special-purpose districts.
KC Emergency
Management
King County
Conservation
District
The King County Conservation District is an independent
special purpose district with separately-elected
commissioners. It promotes water, land, soil, and forest
conservation and preservation and conducts wildfire risk
reduction activities.
King County
Conservation
District
King County IT KCIT leads the county’s response to, and preparedness for,
cyber incidents. KCIT has helped local cities recover from
ransomware and other attacks.
King County
Information
Technology
(KCIT)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
33
King County Flood
Control District
In 2007, the King County Flood Control District was
established to provide a proactive, regional approach to
flooding as well as funding to improve the county's nearly
500 aging and inadequate flood protection facilities.
Funding for the Flood Control District comes from a
county-wide property levy of 12.9 cents per $1,000 assessed
value. This amounts to $54 per year on a $416,000 home.
The levy raises roughly $54.5 million a year. This funding
dramatically increases the number of projects that can be
completed each year. The additional local funding also
enhances the District's ability to receive federal and state
matching funds.
The King County Flood Control District is a separate
special purpose district.
King County
Flood Control
District
Landslide Hazards The Landslide Hazards program conducts mapping and
outreach associated with landslide risk.
DNRP Water
and Land
Resources
Division
Land Use Planning
and Zoning
Land use planning and zoning establishes growth and land
use patterns that are consistent with long-range plans and
supported by infrastructure.
King County
Executive’s
Office
National Flood
Insurance Program
Communities that participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program adopt a floodplain management code in
exchange for FEMA making flood insurance available to
residents and businesses.
DNRP, DLS –
Permitting
Division
Office of Risk
Management
Services
Risk Management investigates and resolves claims against
King County in a fair and expeditious manner, and also
provides internal services to King County agencies,
including:
• Insurance: King County administers a self-insurance
program and purchases a variety of other insurance
policies and related services consistent with good risk
management practices and the needs of the County.
• Contracts: Risk Management advises King County
agencies on insurance requirements, indemnification,
release, and hold harmless provisions in all types of
contracts. Risk Management actively negotiates these
provisions and, together with the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office, assists agencies in pursuing and
tendering claims arising out of contractual relations.
• Recovery Services: The recovery section of Risk
Management is charged with seeking compensation for
Department of
Executive
Services
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
34
damages caused to King County property or injury to
King County employees by negligent third parties.
• Loss Control Program: The Loss Control Manager
works with King County agencies to identify areas of
potential loss and recommend strategies to reduce
exposure to liability. The Loss Control Program also
administers continuing workplace training and
education for King County employees.
Part of this work includes the development and
maintenance of a risk register of events and information on
how those events can impact King County.
Public Health Public Health — Seattle & King County (Public Health)
works to protect and improve the health and well-being of
all people in King County as measured by increasing the
number of healthy years that people live and eliminating
health disparities.
Public Health is the one of the largest metropolitan health
departments in the United States with 1,400 employees, 40
sites, and a biennial budget of $686 million. The
department serves a resident population of nearly 2.2
million people in an environment of great complexity and
scale, with 19 acute care hospitals and over 7,000 medical
professionals. Over 100 languages are spoken here, and
King County is an international destination welcoming
nearly 40 million visitors annually.
Public Health protects the public from threats to their
health, promotes better health, and helps to assure that
people are provided with accessible, quality health care.
Health protection functions include disease control, such as
tuberculosis, HIV, communicable disease epidemiology and
immunizations, and ensuring that the air is safe to breathe,
and water and food are safe to consume.
Health promotion functions include preventing behaviors
that lead to disease, averting injuries and managing chronic
health conditions.
Health provision functions include convening and leading
system-wide efforts to improve access and quality,
advocating for access to quality health care for all, forming
partnerships with service providers and directly providing
individual health services when there is a public health
need.
Public Health
Seattle-King
County
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
35
Road Services
Division
Road services builds and maintains over 2000 miles of road
and 200 bridges. They are responsible for many mitigation
activities, including those related to culvert replacement,
pavement preservation, and bridge retrofits.
Department of
Local Services
Shoreline Master
Program
King County has nearly 2,000 miles of shoreline along
major lakes and rivers and Vashon-Maury Island. These
shorelines provide habitat for fish and wildlife, places for
public enjoyment and space for wide-ranging waterfront
land uses. The Shoreline Master Program helps preserve
these spaces and uses, thereby reducing risk to hazards
including sea-level rise.
DLS – Permitting
Division
Wastewater
Treatment Division
Invest in upgrades to pipe and water treatment facilities to
make them more resilient to earthquakes, severe weather,
flooding, and climate-change.
DNRP
Integration with Departments and other Jurisdictions
Beyond departmental integration, King County works with local jurisdictions, special purpose districts,
and tribes to support effective risk reduction. King County coordinates activities related to emergency
management and hazard mitigation through two bodies, the Emergency Management Coordinating
Committee (EMCC) and the Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which are each
described in greater detail in the table below.
King County Stakeholder Integration Capabilities
ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION MEMBERSHIP
Clean Water /
Healthy Habitat
Initiative
An initiative convened by the
county executive to help
streamline projects, increase
collaboration, and improve
results for the work
accomplished through the
spending of $6 Billion over the
next decade on clean water
and habitat protection in King
County.
All county agencies
King County
Community
Rating System
Users Group
King County and the cities
who are part of CRS meet to
coordinate efforts and provide
technical assistance to each
other on maintaining and
improving CRS ratings.
• Auburn
• Bellevue
• Issaquah
• Kent
• North Bend
• Renton
• Snoqualmie
• Carnation
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
36
• Redmond
• King County
Emergency
Management
Coordinating
Committee
(EMCC)
EMCC is charged by the King
County Council with
coordinating interdepartmental
emergency preparedness
matters. EMCC works to
support departments in
developing continuity of
operations plans, preparedness
plans, and hazard mitigation
plans. It also contributes to
after action reports. EMCC
has played an important role in
the mitigation plan update
process for the county by
identifying and dedicating key
staff to participate in planning
and by reviewing and
providing feedback on
planning team activities.
All county departments are included in the
EMCC. The following are those who attend
meetings more regularly.
• King County Emergency Management
• Department of Human Resources
• Metro Transit Department
• Department of Local Services
• Public Health - Seattle and King County
• Department of Natural Resources and
Parks (DNRP)
• Department of Community and Human
Services
• Department of Adult and Juvenile
Detention
• Facilities Management Division of the
Department of Executive Services
• Director’s Office of the Department of
Executive Services
• King County Information Technology
• Office of Labor Relations
• King County Sheriff’s Office
• Office of the King County Executive
• Department of Assessments
• King County District Court
• King County Elections
• DNRP Solid Waste Division
• DNRP Waste Treatment Division
Emergency
Management
Advisory
Committee
(EMAC)
EMAC advises, assists,
reviews, and comments on
emergency management and
homeland security issues,
regional planning, and policies.
They measure and prioritize
core capabilities and
recommend homeland security
allocations and work products
to sustain and enhance
preparedness and operational
levels. Members, as set forth in
code, provide regional and
multi-disciplinary perspective,
and represent cities, fire
service, law enforcement,
The membership for EMAC is established by
the King County Council and includes the
following entities/interests:
• Central region EMS and Trauma Care
Council
• City of Bellevue
• City of Kent
• City of Renton
• City of Seattle
• 1 Utility
• 1 Faith-Based Organization
• 1 Financial Community Organization
• American Red Cross
• KC DNRP
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
37
hospitals, the Port of Seattle,
government, special purpose
districts, tribes, utilities, non-
profit agencies, and the private
sector.
• KC Metro
• KC Roads
• KC Executive Office
• King County Fire Chief’s Association
• King County Fire Commissioner’s
Association
• King County Police Chief’s Association
• King County Sheriff’s Office
• KC Local Emergency Management
Planning Committee
• Muckleshoot Tribal Nation
• Northwest Healthcare Response
Network
• Port of Seattle
• 1 Private Industry Representative
• Public Health Seattle and King County
• Puget Sound Educational Services
District
• Snoqualmie Tribal Nation
• Sound Cities Association
• Washington Association of Building
Officials
• 1 Water and Sewer District
Representative
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding
Hazard mitigation projects are most often completed with funding from capital budgets as part of the
normal building and maintenance processes that occur in any jurisdiction. There is also source and use-
specific funding, such as that provided by the King County Flood Control District that is part of regular
program funding and is highlighted in the program section above. Beyond regular capital funding, there
are dedicated mitigation programs operated by state, county, and federal agencies.
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding
PROGRAM LEAD AGENCY DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPES
BUILD Grants US
Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Grants support investments in surface
transportation infrastructure and are to
be awarded on a competitive basis for
projects that will have a significant
local/regional impact.
Transportation and
related infrastructure
retrofits, including
stormwater projects
Building Blocks
for Sustainable
Communities
U.S.
Environmental
This EPA program provides targeted,
technical assistance to communities to
Planning and feasibility
studies
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
38
Protection
Agency (EPA)
develop resilience plans, development
plans, sustainability strategies, etc.
Building
Resilient
Infrastructure in
Communities
(BRIC)
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA)
New annual mitigation grant program
that is expected to replace PDM. Will
focus more on large-scale
infrastructure projects that reduce risk
to natural hazards.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
Community
Development
Block Grants
U.S.
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
(HUD)
CDBG funds comprehensive plans,
limited infrastructure
planning/construction, feasibility
studies, community action plans.
Income and population restrictions
apply.
Housing and
infrastructure retrofits,
feasibility studies,
planning
Community
Economic
Revitalization
Board
WA
Department of
Commerce
CERB provides loan funding to local
jurisdictions for public infrastructure
to support private business growth and
expansion.
Infrastructure retrofits,
public-private
partnerships
Combined
Water Quality
Funding
Program
WA
Department of
Ecology
Fund sources for projects associated
with publicly-owned wastewater and
stormwater facilities. The integrated
program also funds nonpoint source
pollution control activities.
Drinking-water system
improvements,
feasibility studies,
source-water
protection,
infrastructure retrofits
Cooperating
Technical
Partnership
Program
FEMA The program creates partnerships
between FEMA and qualified local and
state partners to create, maintain, and
publicize up-to-date flood and other
hazard maps and data.
Planning, outreach,
feasibility studies
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
WA
Department of
Health
The Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) provides loans to
drinking water systems to pay for
infrastructure improvements. In some
cases, partial loan forgiveness is
offered.
Infrastructure retrofits,
source-water
protection, planning,
drinking-water system
improvements
Emergency
Watershed
Protection
Program
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
(NRCS)
Emergency recovery measures for
runoff retardation and erosion
prevention to relieve imminent hazards
created by a natural disaster.
Infrastructure retrofits,
slope stabilization,
source-water
protection, flood risk
reduction, erosion
prevention
Estuary and
Salmon
Department of
Fish and
ESRP provides funding restoration
and protection efforts in Puget Sound,
Acquisitions, slope
stabilization, flood risk
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
39
Restoration
Program
Wildlife
(DFW)
including projects such as flood
storage, erosion control, and climate
resilience measures.
reduction projects,
ecosystem restoration
FireWise Fuel
Mitigation Grant
Program
WA
Department of
Natural
Resources
The Fuel Mitigation Grant provides a
cost share for communities engaged in
defensible space and fuels reduction
projects.
Wildfire fuels
reduction, defensible
space
Floodplains by
Design
WA
Department of
Ecology
Floodplains by Design is the primary
grant program for projects that reduce
flood hazards while restoring the
natural functions that Washington
rivers and floodplains provide.
Slope stabilization,
ecosystem recovery,
flood-risk recovery
Flood Mitigation
Assistance Grant
Program
FEMA FMA provides funding to local
jurisdictions and states for projects and
planning that reduces or eliminates
long-term risk of flood damage to
structures insured under the NFIP.
Flood risk reduction
projects that benefit
the NFIP, including
acquisitions,
elevations, and some
structural mitigation
such as local risk
reduction structures
and dry floodproofing.
Hazard
Mitigation Grant
Program
FEMA
HMGP is authorized statewide after a
disaster declaration and is the most
flexible of FEMA’s three mitigation
programs. Jurisdictions must have an
approved hazard mitigation plan and
projects must be cost effective.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
King County
Flood Control
District Flood
Reduction
Grants
King County
Flood Control
District
The Flood Reduction Grants target
medium and small local flood
reduction projects including projects
where the control of stormwater will
have a direct benefit in reducing
flooding. Eligible applicants include
homeowners, special districts, tribes,
cities, and county agencies.
Projects can address
either existing or
potential flooding and
proposals should show
that the flooding has
current or potential
economic impacts.
King County
Budget
King County The two-year King County budget for
2019-2020 was approximately $11.6
billion dollars. Approximately 15% of
this money makes up the general fund.
Major Expenditures are: Metro Transit
(21%), Wastewater (14%), Health &
Human Services (13%), and Law,
Safety, & Justice (12%). There are
~15,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
Various
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
40
county employees with most employed
in Transit (35%), Criminal Justice
(25%), and Public Health (9%).
King County
Loss Control
Fund
Office of Risk
Management
The Loss Control Fund is for internal
county projects and is limited to
emergent risks where advance planning
and budgeting were unavailable. $2M
has been appropriated for the 2019-
2020 biennium.
Emergent risks, to
include likely
infrastructure failure
King County
Parks Levy
King County Revenue generated by the parks levy
goes to fund open space protection,
new parks, trails, and other assets. This
funding could theoretically be used for
the acquisition of threatened
properties for preservation as open
space.
Acquisition of high-
hazard properties for
preservation as open
space
Post-Fire
Hazard
Mitigation Grant
Program
U.S. EPA
Program authorized following a Fire
Management Assistance Grant
(FMAG) declaration. Program focuses
on wildfire risk and post-fire risk
mitigation, including fuels reduction
and post-fire flood control projects.
Program prioritizes the county
receiving the FMAG declaration.
Fire-related mitigation,
including defensible
space, generators, and
post-fire flood risk
reduction, planning,
feasibility studies
Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Grant
Program
FEMA
Annual program for cost-effective
mitigation projects and plans.
Jurisdiction must have a current
mitigation plan to be eligible.
Following the 2019 grant round, this
program will be replaced by BRIC.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
Public Works
Board
WA
Department of
Commerce
Low-interest loans for pre-
construction or new construction for
replacement/repair of infrastructure
for stormwater, solid waste, road, or
bridge projects. Emergency loans are
available for public projects made
necessary by a disaster or imminent
threat to public health and safety.
Utility and
infrastructure retrofits
Rural
Community
Assistance
Corporation
Rural
Community
Assistance
Corporation
Water, wastewater, stormwater, and
solid waste planning; environmental
work; to assist in developing an
application for infrastructure
Planning, feasibility
studies
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
41
improvements for small, rural
communities.
Rural Water
Revolving Loan
Fund
National Rural
Water
Association
The RWLF provides low-cost loans
for short-term repair costs, small
capital projects, or pre-development
costs associated with larger projects to
small, rural communities.
Source-water
protection, drinking
water system
improvements, other
retrofits
Source Water
Protection Grant
Program
WA
Department of
Health
Projects and studies to identify
solutions to source water protection
problems, implement protection plans,
or update data that directly benefits
source water protection.
Source-water
protection, drinking
water system
improvements, other
retrofits, feasibility
studies
Washington
Transportation
Improvement
Board
Transportation
Improvement
Board
TIB makes and manages street
construction and maintenance grants
to 320 cities and urban counties.
Infrastructure retrofits,
flood risk reduction
Urban and
Community
Forest Program
U.S.
Department of
Agriculture
Program provides technical, financial,
research and educational services to
local jurisdictions and organizations
for the preservation, protection, and
restoration of forestlands.
Natural resource
protection, public
information, planning
King County Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program
A major initiative launching as part of this plan update is the King County Hazard Mitigation Grant
Assistance Program. Led by KC EM, this program seeks to lower the barriers to applying for FEMA
grants, especially given the new opportunities associated with the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.
King County will support jurisdictions by ensuring the mitigation projects are identified in the regional
plan, offering technical assistance in developing applications, and, when requested, by administering
grants on behalf of communities that lack internal grant management capabilities. This program reflects
KC EM’s focus on end-to-end emergency management, supporting partners across all mission areas
from mitigation to recovery.
Participation in the 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.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
42
King County and 34 of the 39 incorporated areas in the County are participants in NFIP; all are currently
in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. The five jurisdictions that do not currently participate
in NFIP are Beaux Arts Village, Hunts Point, Maple Valley, Newcastle and Yarrow Point. Except for
Newcastle, these communities have no special flood hazard areas.
Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance
with NFIP criteria. Communities participating in the NFIP may adopt regulations that are more stringent
than those contained in 44 CFR 60.3, but not less stringent. The Washington State Building Code Act
requires new construction to be elevated to 1 foot above the base flood elevation or to the design flood
elevation, whichever is higher. Some communities in King County have adopted more stringent
standards. For example, a 3-foot freeboard (height above the 100-year flood elevation) is standard for
most structures in unincorporated King County.
Additionally, in the Puget Sound watershed, communities are required to regulate development in
floodplains in a way that doesn’t cause habitat loss or negative impacts to Chinook, coho, and steelhead
salmon species. This is part of the FEMA/NOAA Biological Opinion related to communities’
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are currently in a preliminary stage and are scheduled to be
published in mid-2020.
In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is the coordinating agency for floodplain management.
Ecology works with FEMA and local governments by providing grants and technical assistance,
evaluating community floodplain management programs, reviewing local floodplain ordinances, and
participating in statewide flood hazard mitigation planning. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional
staff and by Ecology. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk
reduction. All planning partners that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their
compliance and good standing. Planning partners who do not currently participate have identified
initiatives to consider enrollment in the program.
Participation in CRS
The Community Rating System is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain
management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements and rewards discounts to ratepayers
in participating communities. King County is a Class 2 community. Flood insurance premiums are
discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following
three goals of the CRS:
• Reduce flood losses.
• Facilitate accurate insurance rating.
• Promote awareness of flood insurance.
For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent.
For example, a Class 1 community receives a 45-percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community
receives a 5-percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they
receive no discount.) The CRS classes are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories:
• Public information
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
43
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness
As of this writing, there are 10 CRS-rated communities in King County.
Community Name Class % Discount in SFHA % Discount in non-SFHA
Auburn 5 25 10
Bellevue 5 25 10
Issaquah 5 25 10
Kent 5 25 10
North Bend 5 25 10
Renton 5 25 10
Snoqualmie 5 25 10
Carnation 7 15 5
Redmond 5 25 10
King County 2 40 10
Regional Risk and Probability Summaries
While most of the risk and probability of future occurrence for hazards is similar for all jurisdictions in
King County, some are at greater risk due to specific geographic features including proximity to
floodplain (increases flood probability and risk from earthquakes due to liquefaction). For natural
hazards, the relative probability of occurrence within 25-50 years (High, Medium, or Low) and relative
risk as described in each jurisdiction’s annex are identified in the table below.
The table below does not include Avalanche risk (high annual probability of occurrence, but only in
unincorporated areas) nor tsunami (low probability of occurrence for all areas, exposure is currently only
mapped for the cities of Des Moines and Seattle. Acronyms: WSD = Water and Sewer District, WD =
Water District, SD = School District, RFA = Regional Fire Authority, UD = Utility District.
Community Name Earthquake Flood Landslide Weather Volcano Wildfire
Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk
Auburn
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue
Bothell
Burien
Clyde Hill
Covington
Des Moines
Duvall
Hunts Point
Issaquah
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
44
Community Name Earthquake Flood Landslide Weather Volcano Wildfire
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Medina
Newcastle
North Bend
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
SeaTac
Shoreline
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Woodinville
Cedar River WSD
Covington WD
Coal Creek UD
Highline WD
King County WD 20
King County WD 90
King County WD
125
Lake Meridian WD
North City WD
NE Sammamish
WSD
Northshore UD
Renton SD
Sammamish Plateau
WSD
Skyway WSD
Soos Creek WSD
South King Fire
Valley RFA
Valley View Sewer
Vashon Island Fire
Woodinville WD
Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
45
Risk Assessment Overview
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment covers 8 natural and 6 human-
caused hazards.
• Avalanche
• Earthquake
• Tsunami
• Volcano
• Landslide
• Wildfire
• Flood
• Severe Weather
• Hazardous Materials
• Health Incident
• Terrorism
• Civil Disturbance
• Cyber Incident
• Dam Failure
These assessments were developed using the best available data from sources including:
• Washington State Fusion Center (Terrorism, Civil Disturbance)
• King County Dam Safety Program (Dam Failure)
• King County IT (Cyber Incident)
• Public Health Seattle-King County (Health Incident)
• Washington State Emergency Management LEPC Program (Hazardous Materials)
• King County Flood Control District (Flood)
• Washington State Emergency Management Geologic Hazards Program (Tsunami, Earthquake,
Volcano)
• King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (Wildfire, Severe Weather)
• Washington State Department of Transportation (Avalanche)
• King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (Landslide)
• King County Department of Permitting (Structure Fire)
• Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Landslide, Earthquake, Tsunami, Volcano,
Wildfire)
• King County Facilities Management Division
• King County Hazard Inventory and Risk Assessment, 2016
• FEMA RiskMAP Program, King County Risk Report (Earthquake, Landslide, Volcano, Flood)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
46
Data sources are cited with footnotes throughout the plan. In addition to using data and report
information from the above sources, many also contributed time and expertise to the review and
development of the individual risk assessment chapters.
Methodology
This risk assessment is intended to provide a robust overview containing key details, vulnerabilities, and
considerations to enable emergency managers to plan for disasters. The profiles are designed to be brief,
and yet also comprehensive enough, to be useful during a disaster response to help provide information
on potential impacts and priority vulnerabilities.
This assessment focuses on examining impacts (consequences) from hazards on 10 different topic areas.
These areas reflect best practices as identified by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
(EMAP) plus priority areas identified by King County.
• King County residents – all residents in King County
• Vulnerable populations – populations more likely to experience losses and recover more slowly
from an incident. Different vulnerable populations may be highlighted depending on the
incident type. For example, wildfire in King County is overwhelmingly a problem of smoke and
smoke impact people with respiratory vulnerabilities most severely.
• Property – private property
• The economy – economic functions and assets
• The environment – natural resources, wildfire, fish, plants, and natural systems
• Health systems – hospitals, pharmacies, and the ability for people to find and receive care
• Government operations (continuity of operations) – King County government operations
• Responders – fire, police, EMS, and related services
• Lifeline infrastructure – power, water/wastewater, transportation, communications
• Public confidence in jurisdiction’s governance and capabilities
Each profile also looks at priority vulnerabilities in order to identify those areas requiring immediate
focus before, during, and after an incident.
Data
GIS data was taken from a variety of King County, Washington State, and federal sources. The data was
sourced via King County GIS, including layers owned by both GIS and by other entities. Some of the
GIS data analyzed in completing this risk assessment include:
TITLE DESCRIPTION SOURCE
Active Faults Known active faults in the Puget
Sound region
WA State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
47
Wastewater
Systems
King County wastewater treatment
and conveyance systems
King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks Water Treatment
Division (DNRP)
Water Supply
Facilities
Seattle water supply facilities and
conveyance systems. These are used
to supply Seattle as well as many
cities.
City of Seattle Public Utilities
Bridges King County-maintained bridges King County Roads
Rail Routes All rail routes, including BNSF and
Sound Transit
King County GIS
Transit Routes Metro transit routes King County Metro
Arterials Arterial streets King County Roads
Levees and
Revetments
County-maintained flood protection
structures.
DNRP, King County Flood Control
District
BPA
Transmission
Lines
Bonneville Power Administration
power transmission systems
Bonneville Power Administration
Historic Buildings Designated historic buildings King County GIS
Schools School facilities King County GIS
Government
Buildings
King County government buildings King County GIS, Facilities
Management Division
Hospitals and
Medic Units
Hospitals and medic unit locations King County GIS
Pharmacies Pharmacy locations King County GIS
First Responder
Facilities
Locations of fire, police, and EMS King County GIS
City Boundaries City jurisdictional boundaries King County GIS
Rivers and Lakes Waterbodies King County GIS
Building Address
Points
Building address points and age King County Assessor
Building Age Building address points and age King County Assessor
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
48
Volcanic Hazard
Areas
Lahar, lava flow, and lahar sediment
areas
WA DNR, U.S. Geological Survey
Landslide Hazard
Areas
Historic, deep landslide risk areas WA DNR
Preliminary 100-
year Floodplain
1% annual chance, special flood
hazard area as mapped by FEMA.
Will take effect as the regulatory
floodplain in 2020.
FEMA, King County Flood Control
District
Floodways The regulatory areas including the
channel and adjacent land areas that
must be preserved in order to
discharge the base flood without
increasing the water surface elevation
by more than a designated height.
FEMA, King County Flood Control
District
Liquefaction
Potential
Areas of NEHRP soil classes D, E,
and F.
WA DNR
Landslide Buffer
Areas
Buffers of 50 feet around known
landslide areas.
King County GIS
Statewide Roads State and federal highways King County GIS
Health Insurance
Coverage
Individuals with health insurance, by
Census Tract
US Census, American Community
Survey (ACS)
Travel Time to
Work
Travel time to work on average by
Census Tract
US Census, ACS
Means of
Transportation to
Work
Means of transportation to work, by
percent, by Census Tract
US Census, ACS
Race Self-identified race US Census, ACS
Ethnicity Self-identified ethnicity US Census, ACS
Income Income (range) US Census, ACS
Languages Languages other than English spoken
at home
US Census, ACS
Disability Status Counts of disabled persons King County GIS
Education Educational attainment by years, by
Census Tract
US Census, ACS
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
49
This and any additional data can be viewed on the ArcGIS online hazard map. This map will be available
at least during the plan review and adoption phase and may be made available permanently:
http://kingcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=41abdeae1bf44907a9c14b98a2e5fb9
2.
Vulnerable Populations and Population-Based Vulnerability
Population vulnerability (or social vulnerability) measures factors that theoretically increase the likelihood
of a population to suffer more losses during disasters or recover more slowly after being impacted. There
is a growing body of work on this kind of vulnerability; however, how the data is reported can obscure
the root causes of vulnerability when converted into an index or score. Knowing the root causes of
vulnerability and how those vulnerabilities contribute to losses during disasters is critical for hazard
mitigation professionals since each cause may require a unique strategy to address. For example, if the
vulnerability results from language differences, then this can be addressed with robust translation and
outreach services.
Communities that consider population-based vulnerability and social justice, often do it as an overlay –
examining the impacts of a proposed project on vulnerable populations, for example, after the project
has already been prioritized or mapping the location of vulnerable populations in accordance with some
composite score and institutionally-defined definition of vulnerability. It is unclear if mapping alone, if
awareness alone, has had much impact on where the bulk of resources are directed.
For this analysis, we examine the best available data of factors that have been found to lead to increased
losses or recovery times following hazard events. This is to establish areas with different kinds of
heightened vulnerability. We then overlay data on race, ethnicity, and income. This is to establish where
equity may be a concern, where causes of vulnerability overlap with historically underrepresented
minority populations.
Determinants of Population Vulnerability
Good data at the appropriate scale was not available for all the below factors. However, these are factors
that were identified through research and by the planning team as critical determinants of vulnerability.
Maps of a selection of these factors, along with priority hazard areas, follow the list of variables.
Population factors (population-based measures)
1. Home Ownership Status (Renter)
2. Age (old or young)
Tenure Housing tenure (ownership) status King County GIS
HAZUS for
earthquake
(Seattle Fault,
Cascadia
Subduction Zone)
HAZUS runs for Seattle Fault 7.1 and
Cascadia Subduction Zone 9.0
scenarios
FEMA RiskMAP
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
50
3. Unemployment
4. Income
5. Wealth
6. Access and Functional Needs/Disability
7. Dependence on public transportation
8. Language other than English spoken at home
9. No health insurance
10. Hazard insurance coverage
11. Minimum wage employment/service sector employment
12. Families with dependents
13. Living in poverty
14. Crime rate
15. Years of schooling completed (HS, BA, MA, etc.)
Accessibility and capital factors (access/infrastructure measures/social capital)
• Access to services (schools, libraries, community centers, county/city facilities)
• Quality of public facilities (public facility effective age)
• Quality of schools
• Access to hospitals or health clinics
• Quality of hospitals/health clinics
• Access to phone and internet
• Average age of housing
• Average commute time/distance to work
• Per capita government spending
• Neighborhood engagement (civic engagement, neighborhood association, something else?)
Meta-factors (determinants of equity)
• Race/ethnicity
• Age
• Income
• Immigrant/refugee status
The results from this analysis will be used to promote more effective, equitable disaster mitigation,
response, and recovery by identifying key vulnerabilities and areas that may require additional
investment. Also, this analysis will help identify areas where public infrastructure is older or less resilient,
or where hazard risk is greater, so that additional investments can be targeted in those areas.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
51
The following maps illustrate several of the above variables associated with greater hazard risk along with
high hazard areas and non-white populations. This is just a selection of potential variables and illustrates
how high-hazard areas, factors associated with hazard risk, and communities of color or with higher rates
of disability may overlap. The highest population-risk areas in King County tend to be areas south of
Seattle in the Green River Valley. These areas also are areas with the highest hazard risk. Investments
that target critical public infrastructure and support structures in these communities would likely have
the best cost-benefit ratio. Investments in these areas would have the added benefit of also promoting
more equitable access to high-quality infrastructure and services for populations historically underserved
by public investment.
Homeownership (Darker=More Homeowners) Disability (Darker=Higher Rate)
Median Household Income (Darker=Higher) People of Color (Darker=Higher Percentage)
Liquefaction Potential (Darker=More Risk) 100-Year Floodplains
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
52
Speak Language Other Than English (High-Low) Car Dependency (Darker=More Car Dependent)
Jurisdiction-Specific Risk Assessments
In addition to this countywide risk assessment, each planning partner completed a risk assessment
focusing on the priority hazards, vulnerabilities, and consequences. These assessments are contained in
each planning partner annex. These assessments will have much more detail about individual jurisdiction
risks and should supplement the wider lens of the risk profiles contained in the core plan.
To complete their assessments, jurisdictions were provided with GIS data and an ArcGIS online map
containing relevant data on hazards and impacts. The data is the same as that used in the base plan risk
assessments, but jurisdictions were asked to focus on impacts specific to their assets and boundaries.
Jurisdictions assessed risk in two ways.
First, jurisdictions looked at hazards that could impact them, how susceptible/vulnerable they are to
those hazards, and the consequences/impacts of a hazard event. The task was to develop “risk elevator
pitches” that summarize the key elements of hazard risk in a way accessible to elected officials and the
public.
Second, jurisdictions were asked to consider an asset-based approach, looking at their priority assets, the
hazards that threaten those assets, and the consequences of losing the asset. All jurisdictions were
encouraged to complete this process, but only special purpose districts were required to complete it. The
goal of this approach was to identify assets that needed mitigation.
In addition to these risk summaries, a map showing the spatially discrete hazards (flood, liquefaction
potential, steep slopes) was developed for cities.
In developing their risk assessments, jurisdictions held internal meetings to select the list of hazards that
would be included and to assess the relative risk of each hazard. Most used a high-medium-low approach
for impact, where high impact is a debilitating event and moderate impacts are serious events that disrupt
operations for multiple days. For those that also considered probability separately from the base plan, a
high probability event is likely to occur on an annual basis. These jurisdiction-specific risk assessments
are not designed to be exhaustive but should give a much clearer picture of risk and vulnerability than is
normally available from countywide assessments.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
53
King County Development Trends and Risk Trajectory
From 2010 to 2018 King County has grown at a rate of 13.4% per year.3 This population growth has
coincided with a near doubling of total assessed property values in the county from $340 billion in 2014
to $606 billion in 2019.4 Over $44 billion worth of new construction was assessed from 2014-2018.
Property values stabilized in most of the county in 2018, although many unincorporated areas, especially
in the northeast of the county around Carnation and Duvall, continued to grow at double-digit rates.
The huge growth in property values and development of new lands has also coincided with a growth in
diversity. In 2018, the total population identifying as white declined by nearly 5000 persons while the
non-white population grew dramatically. While this is a small change, it indicates that the future of King
County will be more diverse and more populous.
Also, since 2015 the available science on risk has improved markedly. King County has new landslide
hazard data from Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR). There is also updated
tsunami data indicating far greater risk than previously recognized in the coastal areas. New climate
change data is available in the Puget Sound State of Knowledge Report.5 Finally, WA DNR is expected
to publish a draft wildland-urban interface fire risk map by the end of 2019, helping to show the extent
of fire risk, much of it spurred by the growth indicated above.
As development has occurred, jurisdictions have invested in risk reduction measures such as the
installation of ductile iron pipe to replace cast iron pipe in water systems. While this work is critical, in
most jurisdictions it is unlikely to be complete for 20-30 years. Other work has included bridge retrofits,
wastewater system improvements, flood risk reduction projects, and risk assessments and planning.
Nevertheless, there are dozens to hundreds of bridges in need of upgrades to keep the transportation
system functioning in the event of a major earthquake.
New science showing more risk and a dramatic increase in population, especially in areas not previously
developed, indicates that the county trajectory is toward more exposure and vulnerability. While there is
ongoing work to reduce risk, it is not keeping up with existing needs, much less the needs of a larger,
more diverse population living across a larger area.
ESTIMATED CHANGES IN RISK 2015-2020
SECTOR RISK CHANGE (Increased -,
Decreased +, No Change =)
EXPLANATION
3 King County Office of the Executive. 2018. 2018 King County Quick Facts. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/Demographics.aspx.
4 King County Office of Economic and Financial Analysis. July 19, 2019. July 2019 King County Economic and
Revenue Forecast. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/business/Forecasting/documents/July2019_Forecast.ashx?la=en.
5 Climate Impacts Group. 2015. Puget Sound State of Knowledge Report. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
http://cses.washington.edu/picea/mauger/ps-sok/ps-sok_cover_and_execsumm_2015.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
54
King County Residents With a larger population that is likely no
more prepared, risk to King County
residents is estimated to have increased.
Vulnerable Populations While there has been a large increase in
median income, there is more income
inequality and housing insecurity due to
housing costs and other issues. There are
also many new immigrants who may not be
reached by disaster messaging or be familiar
with the region’s hazards. Overall risk to
vulnerable populations has increased as
these populations have grown.
Property While the construction boom is reducing
risk in some areas, some construction
patterns, such as building homes close
together, is increasing risk from fire. Also,
the new development, some of it in
marginal areas is increasing risk. This is
especially acute in areas in the wildland-
urban interface, near floodplains, or on
unstable soils.
The Economy The economy has grown but is also
susceptible to a shock caused by a disaster
that could permanently displace the major
companies that make this region so
competitive. Many of these companies are
highly mobile and a disaster that destroys
the region’s infrastructure could devastate
the economy.
The Environment With heightened climate change and more
development, the environment is more
threatened by hazards including wildfire
and flooding.
Health Systems Health systems have seen modest
improvement in overall risk as hospitals are
upgraded to higher seismic standards.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
55
Government
Operations
No increase or decrease in risk to
government operations is identified. While
there continues to be some modest
investment in the resilience of public
facilities, there is still significant risk of
disruption of services during a major
incident, as demonstrated during the 2019
snow event. A seismic event would still
threaten the ability of King County
government to provide services and many
buildings may not be useable.
Responders No change in the risk to responders is
identified.
Infrastructure Systems Although not sufficient to meet the need,
investments in infrastructure have modestly
reduced risk.
Public Confidence Mixed Public confidence in the jurisdictions’
capabilities is estimated to be mixed. On
one hand, emergency management and
county government are delivering services
on a huge scale and received relatively
positive feedback from the February 2019
storms. On the other, there has been little
movement to systematically improve
earthquake resilience, something frequently
reported by the media.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
56
Regional Risk Profile: Avalanche
Hazard Description
Avalanche hazards in the Northwest are associated with winter storms in the Cascade and Olympic
Mountain ranges. Avalanches occur when a snow pack loses its grip on a slope and slides downhill.
Typically, slopes of between 20 to 30 degrees and snow packs of 34 inches or more may produce
avalanches. Most natural avalanches occur in back country little used by humans during such weather
conditions. This tends to minimize exposure to avalanche impacts. Most vulnerable are travelers and
winter recreation enthusiasts using Stevens Pass in
northeastern King County, Snoqualmie Pass in
central-eastern King County, and Crystal Mountain
Ski Area near Chinook and Cayuse passes in just
outside of southeastern King County.6
Regionally, severe winter weather in the form or
snowfall in the Cascade Mountains results in a
snowpack that – when conditions are right – can
lead to a natural or man-made/induced avalanche.
Avalanches can result in impacts to transportation
through mountain passes and injuries or death to people using the mountain backcountry recreationally.
Avalanche danger in King County is highest during severe winter weather from October through March
annually. When moist air from the Pacific rises to climb the Cascade Mountains and meets the colder air
of the U.S. interior, precipitation often falls as snow from late October through March or April each
year.
The most frequent impact from avalanche is from pass closures, especially along Snoqualmie Pass on I-
90. In particularly severe events, both Snoqualmie and Stevens
pass may close for days at a time, effectively cutting the state in
half. The other routes that cross the cascades, US 12, US 20,
SR 410, and SR 14, are not suitable for large traffic volumes
and large trucks and are often closed when I-90 and US 2 are
closed. This occurred most recently during the February 2019
snowstorm. In that event, all the east-west highways were
closed, limiting King County’s road salt supply from the east
side of the state. The snowfall totals at the pass exceeded
normal, with 118 total inches in February alone (average
accumulation in February is 73.9 inches). February 12, 2019
broke the 24-hour snowfall record, with 31.5 inches recorded
6 Washington State Department of Transportation, Prediction of Snow and Avalanches in Maritime Climates: Final
Report, WA-RD 203.1, December 1989, p.3.
Stevens Pass WSDOT avalanche control areas
Snoqualmie Pass WSDOT avalanche control areas.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
57
by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) crews recorded at the summit. During
this event, I-90 was closed beginning Monday afternoon, February 11, reopening on Thursday morning
due to avalanche danger.
Avalanche impact areas are mapped for Snoqualmie and Stevens passes, which are maintained
throughout the winter by WSDOT crews. Chinook and Cayuse passes are closed during the winter due
to avalanche danger and difficulty of maintaining a clear roadway.
In addition to the roadway risk, two of the state’s three cross-state railways pass through the Cascades.
These railroads travel along a route similar to the major highways and are similiarly susceptible to
avalanche. Major snowfall and avalanche danger can disrupt rail freight traffic across the state, with
significant economic impacts.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Recreational areas that support snowshoeing, alpine and cross-country skiing, snowmobile areas, and
winter hikers and campers are most at risk from avalanche incidents. Typically, injuries to recreational
hikers, skiers, snow boarders, and climbers occur outside managed areas. Several stretches of Interstate
90 and Highway 2 in King County are vulnerable to avalanches between October and April each year,
depending on snow packs and weather conditions. Both Snoqualmie and Stevens Pass are significant
commercial routes. Cargos are carried between the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and eastern
Washington. When Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes are closed, I-84 in Oregon or air travel are the only
practical ways to travel between Spokane and Seattle.
The popular backcountry skiing areas around Stevens and Snoqualmie passes are high-hazard zones
where avalanche fatalities are relatively common. WSDOT posts signs, though these warnings are
frequently ignored. People engaged in snow sports in these areas are often among the most experienced
enthusiasts; however, even with safety equipment, they may trigger or fall victim to avalanches. There
are, on average, one to three fatalities in avalanches statewide each year. Hundreds of avalanches are
thought to occur around the Cascades each winter, though most without any human cause or impact.
There are twelve common factors that contribute to avalanche danger, including old snow depth, old
snow surface, new snow depth, new snow type, snow density, snow fall intensity, precipitation intensity,
settlement, wind direction and wind speed, temperature, subsurface snow crystal structure, and tidal
effect.7 Research done at Snoqualmie Pass indicates that most natural avalanches occur within one hour
after the onset of rain over a weakened snow pack.8 Large amounts of new snow accumulation also
increases avalanche risk, especially when coupled with wide temperature swings.
7 Kruse, Scott M. “Avalanche Evaluation Check List,” Avalanche Review vol. 8, No 4, February 1990
8 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation – Avalanche
Control http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/avalanche4
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
58
Significant Historic Avalanches 2001-2019 – Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes9
YEAR PASS FATALITIES AND INJURIES
1910 (Historic Maximum) Stevens Pass (railway) 96 Fatalities
2001 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 1 Fatality, 2 Injuries
2002 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 10 Injuries
2003 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Fatality, 1 Injury
2004 None None
2005 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 1 Fatality
2006 None None
2007 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 2 Fatalities
2008 None None
2009 None None
2010 Snoqualmie Pass 3 Injuries
2011 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 6 Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2012 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 12+ Injuries, 6 Fatalities
2013 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 4+ Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2014 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 7+ Injuries, 1 Fatality
2015 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 2 Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2016 None None
2017 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 2 Injuries, 1 Fatality
2018 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 3 Fatalities
2019 None None
9 Northwest Avalanche Center, Accident Reports. Accessed online on 5/13/19 from
https://www.nwac.us/accidents/accident-reports/
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
59
Scenario Drivers
There are two kinds of avalanches, loose and slab. Loose avalanches occur when light-grained snow
exceeds its “angle of repose”, collapses a snow drift or bank and fans out as it slides downhill. A slab
avalanche occurs when heavy or melting snow resting on top of looser snow breaks away from the slope
and moves in a mass. The latter often occurs when rains soak the top layer of snow on moderately
sloped terrain.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Back-country
recreationists
Snowmobilers, hikers, and skiers in back-country and off-trail environments
are at the highest risk from avalanche.
Transportation networks
I-90 and US-2 are the most vulnerable routes to avalanche. Disruptions to
both are common during the winter, though most are for a short duration. A
long-duration disruption could have significant economic consequences.
Public safety officers and
volunteers
Search and Rescue regularly travel on search missions for missing
recreationists, putting them at risk from avalanche as well.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Avalanche conditions can cause closure of ski areas like: Alpental, Hyak
(Summit East), Ski Acres (Summit Central), Stevens Pass, and/or Crystal
Mountain. The recreational skiers and the people who are seasonally
employed can be impacted when these conditions close ski areas. People
who ski “out of bounds” take exceptional risks in locations where avalanche
control does not maintain safe conditions and search and rescue operations
may be hampered.
Pass closures may inconvenience people by causing them to either take
commercial flights between eastern and western Washington or cause them
to take wide routes around the mountain area through the Columbia Gorge
between Washington and Oregon.
There are no major populations in King County that are exposed to
avalanche terrain. The King County community closest to avalanche country
is Skykomish. It has not experienced an avalanche in recent memory.
Vulnerable populations No specific impacts are expected to vulnerable populations for this hazard.
Property Property exposed to avalanches include ski area lifts and equipment, small
clusters of seasonal vacation homes and utilities supporting ski areas, ski
lodges, ski area support operations, and those vacation properties.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
60
The economy Closure of ski areas from avalanche danger usually lasts only a short time.
While revenue to one or more ski areas may be reduced, no long-term
economic impacts can be expected from avalanche issues.
Heavy snows and avalanche danger may close Stevens and/or Snoqualmie
Pass for extended periods. These pass closures can impede transportation of
goods between eastern/western Washington, impact the Port of Seattle and
port/countries around the/Pacific Rim.
Avalanche closure of King County passes may cause motorists and truckers
to reroute through Interstate 84 in Portland.
The most significant avalanche event in Washington State, and the deadliest
in US history, occurred in 1910 near Stevens Pass. Two trains carrying
passengers were hit by an avalanche killing 96 people. Economic impacts are
also substantial. A WSDOT study claimed that a four-day closure at
Snoqualmie Pass in the winter of 2007/2008 cost the state $27.9M in
economic output, 170 jobs, and $1.42M in state revenue (2008 dollars).10
The environment Avalanches are natural events; however, they kill wildlife and trees and can
reshape the landscape.
Health systems There are no known healthcare facilities or systems exposed to avalanches.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
Avalanche areas are remote to most King County operations. Where
avalanches may occur, King County Sheriff’s Office Search and Rescue, Ski
patrols, and volunteers may be involved. This may include BARK, a group
that provides K-9 search capability for avalanche victims. Support may also
be required from the aviation unit of the King County Sheriff’s Office and
from Emergency Medical Service units.
Support personnel for avalanche control are provided by Washington State
Department of Transportation.
Responders When avalanches bury or injury skiers and backcountry hikers, the King
County Sheriff’s Office Search and Rescue team(s) may be deployed along
with trained volunteers and specially trained volunteer K-9 units like BARK
(Backcountry Avalanche Rescue K-9). Most search missions occur in or
around the off-trail perimeter of ski areas like Snoqualmie Acres, Hyak,
10 Ripley, Richard, “Four-day Snoqualmie Pass closure cost $27.9 million,” Spokane Journal, 11/20/2008. Accessed
online: https://www.spokanejournal.com/local-news/four-day-snoqualmie-pass-closure-cost-279-million/
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
61
Alpental, Crystal Mountain, and Steven’s Pass. Buried skiers are often
severely injured or may be killed from their injuries or suffocation under
large amounts of snow in areas difficult to reach.
Infrastructure systems There are no critical facilities located in areas of the county subject to
avalanches. Critical infrastructure that may be impacted includes the BNSF
railway (also used by Amtrak) and the east west highways, US 2 (Stevens
Pass) and I-90 (Snoqualmie Pass). Chinook Pass usually closes from October
through May.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
The public at risk has a good understanding of the risks from avalanche.
Warnings are regularly posted and announced to skiers and back country
hikers during the winter months.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
62
Regional Risk Profile: Civil Disorder
Hazard Description
Civil Disorder and civil disturbances can range from minor to significant events that can disrupt the
functioning of a community for a few days, weeks or months. A worst case-scenario for a King County
civil disorder would be an incident that takes place in a large urban environment and lasts for an
extended period of time. An example of a worst-case scenario was the 1999 Seattle World Trade
Organization rioting which significantly impacted the City and led to numerous injuries and arrests. The
rioting raised Seattle's cost of handling the conference to $9 million from an earlier estimated city cost
of $6 million surpassing worst-case projections11. In addition, downtown Seattle businesses lost an
estimated $20 million in property damage and lost sales during the WTO conference.
Title 18 of the United States Code defines civil disorder and lists the crimes associated with civil
disorder. In Section 231 of Chapter 12, defines civil disorder as: “any public disturbance involving acts
of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in
damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual…(a)(1)…use, application or making
of any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to
persons…or…(a)(2)…transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or
explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be
used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder…or…(a)(3)…commit any act to obstruct, impede, or
interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of
official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder…”.12
The term civil disobedience in contrast is a non-violent form of protest or resistance to obeying certain
laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power. Civil disobedience has been
promoted by nationalist movements in Africa and India, the civil rights movement of the U.S., and
labor and anti-war movements in many countries. Civil disobedience is sometimes equated with protests
or non-violent resistance. Acts of civil disobedience can start peacefully but can lead to violence. In this
context, civil disorder arising from civil disobedience in which participants turn violent and antagonistic
toward public safety and civil authority is illegal. Washington state law defines civil disorder as “any
public disturbance involving acts of violence that is intended to cause an immediate danger of, or to
result in, significant injury to property or the person of any other individual.” Under Revised Code of
Washington 9A.48.120, civil disorder training “as (1)…a person is guilty of civil disorder training if he or
she teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any device or
technique capable of causing significant bodily injury or death to persons, knowing, or having reason to
11 CBC News. January 6, 2000. WTO protests hit Seattle in the pocketbook. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/wto-protests-hit-seattle-in-the-pocketbook-1.245428.
12 Office of the Law Revision Council. 18 USC Ch. 12: Civil Disorders. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
63
know or intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil
disorder”…and (2) classifies it as a “class B felony.”
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Civil disorder may result from many situations and encompass a broad spectrum of civil action that
ranges from peaceful events to other forms of disturbance caused by a group of people. The severity of
such disturbances often reflects the degree of public displeasure or expression of discontent. Examples
of civil disorder include, but are not necessarily limited to: violent demonstrations and other forms of
obstructions, riots, sabotage, and other forms of crime. Civil disorder can be a dangerous condition that
can become increasingly chaotic and volatile.
Laws have evolved that govern civil disorder and peacefully resolve conflict. In the United States,
gathering in a crowd is constitutionally protected under “the right of the people to peacefully assemble.”
However, assemblies that are not peaceable are generally not protected. The laws that deal with
disruptive conduct are generally grouped into offenses that disturb the public peace. They range from
misdemeanors, such as blocking sidewalks or challenging another to fight, to felonies, such as looting
and rioting.13
The circumstances surrounding civil disorder may be spontaneous or may result from escalating
tensions as was demonstrated during 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization protests. Civil disorder
can erupt anywhere but the most likely locations are those areas with large population groupings or
gatherings.14 Sites that are attractive for political rallies should be viewed as potential locations for the
epicenter of civil disorder events. Disruption of critical infrastructure may occur during very severe civil
disorder events. Public services such as water, power, communication, and transportation may be
temporarily unavailable.
Civil disorder can also occur in proximity to locations where a ‘trigger event’ occurred as was the case in
January 2017 at University of Washington when demonstrators and counter-demonstrators gathered as
a politically conservative commentator was scheduled to speak. Violent protests took place on campus
and a person was shot.
The Seattle Mardi Gras riot occurred on February 27, 2001, when disturbances broke out in the Pioneer
Square neighborhood during Mardi Gras celebrations. There were numerous random attacks on revelers
over a period of about three and a half hours. There were reports of widespread brawling, vandalism,
and weapons being brandished. Damage to local businesses exceeded $100,000. About 70 people were
13 Revised Code of Washington Title 9A.
14 Mid-America Regional Council. 2015. Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.marc.org/Emergency-Services-9-1-1/pdf/2015HMPdocs/HMP2015_Sec4-HAZ-CivilDisorder.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
64
reported injured. Several women were sexually assaulted. One man, Kris Kime, died of injuries sustained
during an attempt to assist a woman being brutalized.15
Civil disorder can also occur as a collective outburst from a causal factor or driver. For example, past
May Day protests in Seattle have routinely exhibited violence or vandalism. A 2013 May Day protest in
downtown Seattle turned violent with police responding to demonstrators throwing rocks, bottles, metal
pipes, fireworks -- and even a skateboard. The clashes left eight officers with injuries, and police
reporting the arrests of 17 people on various offenses including property destruction and assault. During
the clashes, police deployed flash-bang grenades and tackled unruly protesters to the ground.16 In 2016
May Day protest in Seattle a peaceful march turned violent when protesters lit fireworks and threw
rocks and Molotov cocktails at police. Nine people were arrested and five officers were injured in the
clashes.
While May Day is not recognized as an official holiday, many treat it as a nationwide day of strike with
thousands turning out for peaceable protests and marches in Seattle.17 Other groups, such as anti-
capitalists, anti-fascists, radical environmentalists and anarchists plan May Day events too with chaos
and violence often resulting in arrests, infrastructure damage and interruption to transportation services.
These aren’t the only groups to demonstrate on May Day. In the 1970s, anti-war protesters took to the
streets of Seattle. Anti-police brutality activists joined anarchists in 2015.18
The ultimate severity of any civil disorder event will depend on the magnitude of the event and its
location. The more widespread an event is, the greater the likelihood of excessive injury, loss of life and
property damage. Additional factors, such as the ability of law enforcement to contain the event, are
also critical in minimizing damages.
Against this backdrop and historical precedence, King County will continue to experience civil disorder
stemming from civil disturbance in which participants turn violent and antagonistic toward civil
authority in Seattle and other communities. However, based on King County’s experience with such
disturbances, the probability that such incidents will develop into mass violence of civil disorder remains
low.
15 Burton, Lynsi. February 16, 2015. Looking back: Mardi Gras riots of 2001. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/Looking-back-Mardi-Gras-riots-of-2001-6084162.php.
16 Watts, Amanda and Lindy Royce-Bartlett. May 2, 2013. 17 arrested as Seattle May Day protests turn violent. CNN.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/seattle-may-day-protests/index.html.
17 Mirfendereski, Taylor. April 30, 2017. What is May Day? King 5 News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/what-is-may-day/281-435393398.
18 Guevara, Natalie. May 1, 2019. May Day: A primer on the labor, immigrant rights rally and its history in Seattle. The
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/May-Day-
Seattle-protest-immigration-labor-anarchy-13808200.php.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
65
Scenario Drivers
Civil Disorder can arise from many situations and be triggered by a specific issue or by combination of
causes. Instances of police violence have often been a scenario trigger for civil disorder (e.g. 2009
Oakland police shooting of Oscar Grant).19 In King County, the 2008 video of a King County deputy
assaulting a teen girl in a holding cell was referenced in a Seattle 2010 ‘March Against Police Brutality’
flyer.20 During the Capital Hill demonstration Seattle police arrested five individuals for investigation of
crimes ranging from trespassing to inciting a riot.
While demonstrations and protests can occur throughout King County, these civil actions often involve
free speech rights in public places and do not evolve into chaos and violence. Civil disorder within King
County remains centered in the Seattle area. For planning purposes, civil disorder occurs in areas of
government buildings, military bases, schools/universities, city council meetings, state/city parks and
within a downtown core.
The lines between civil disorder, civil disobedience, civil unrest and protest/demonstrations are often
times blurred and encompass a wide range of actions from peaceful to violent, from legal to illegal and
from spontaneous to highly planned. Further, while a group of people may organize and bring attention
to a specific cause through peaceful protest/demonstrations, a smaller, separate group may engage in
illegal tactics. This group of anarchists are seen as purveyors of violence and destruction.21 Typically,
criminal anarchists employ a common mode of dress which is part of a tactic frequently called "Black
Bloc." In the "Black Bloc" stratagem, throngs of criminal anarchists all dress in black clothing in an
effort to appear as a unified assemblage, giving the appearance of solidarity for the particular cause at
hand. This tactic is particularly troubling for law enforcement security forces, as no anarchist rioter can
be distinguished from another, allowing virtual anonymity while conducting criminal acts as a group.
Black Bloc gained attention in the United States in 1999 after violent protests at a meeting of the World
Trade Organization in Seattle, according to a 2001 history of the tactic on the anarchist news website,
A-Infos. Hundreds of people were arrested in the Seattle riots, which involved anarchists vandalizing
businesses.22
Not every public protest or demonstration will attract an element of criminal anarchists. The types of
demonstrations unlawful anarchists most commonly attend include those against environmentally
harmful practices, those against gentrification, and anti-police rallies.
19 Associated Press. June 13, 2011. Ex-BART Officer Johannes Mehserle Released From Jail. KPIX CBS SF Bay Area.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/13/ex-bart-officer-johannes-mehserle-
released-from-prison/.
20 JSeattle. April 9, 2010. Protest against police brutality starts at Seattle Central. Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2010/04/protest-against-police-brutality-starts-at-seattle-central/.
21 Flowers, Kory. January 30, 2015. Understanding the Black Block. Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.policemag.com/341767/understanding-the-black-bloc.
22 Rossman, Sean. February 2, 2017. G-20 summit protests: What is a Black Bloc? USA Today. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
66
Priority Vulnerabilities
Government facilities
Civil disorder incidents often target government organizations or visible
images of the government such as police vehicles, city halls, or court
facilities.
Businesses
Businesses such as banks, businesses in downtown areas or along
transportation routes, and other commercial establishments are often
targeted during looting or may be targeted for political or racist reasons such
as ownership by an immigrant group in the case of anti-immigration riots or
because they are associated with an industry being targeted by the
manifestation (banks, abortion clinics, oil company offices, etc.).
Minority and immigrant
communities
There have been multiple incidents in recent years of white-supremacist
organizations holding events that turn violent, including the Charlottesville,
VA marches that resulted in the death of a woman at the hands of a white
supremacist terrorist who drove his vehicle into a crowd.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
All King County residents can be impacted, though those who live or work in downtown
areas tend to be more exposed and impacted by civil disorder incidents.
Vulnerable
populations
Ethnic minority and immigrant communities are historically targeted by civil disorder
events. While rare in our region, the United States has a long history of racially-motivated
riots that burn and destroy minority-owned businesses and homes.
Property Much of the impact from civil disorder is to property, secondary only to economic
impacts. During the World Trade Organization protests in 2000, over $20 million in
damage was recorded by businesses and $9 million in costs to the city.
The economy Economic impacts caused by loss of business, destruction of businesses, and business
interruption can exceed the property damage dollar figures by a factor of two or more.
Lost sales and uninsured losses can permanently destroy many businesses. Areas can also
become perceived as unsafe or unwelcoming for business, further hurting the economy.
The
environment
Civil Disorder will have a minimum impact on the environment; unless, hazard material
facilities such as petroleum, chemical, and recycling are targeted in arson fires or
vandalism. The impact on the environment in such cases could be significant.
Health
systems
Health systems can be overwhelmed by civil disorder incidents, such as when large
numbers of demonstrators are brought to the hospital due to exposure to tear gas or due
to clashes with counter-demonstrators or with police.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
67
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Major incidents can bring government services to a standstill. In King County, with both
City of Seattle and King County offices are in the same area, along with court facilities. A
major incident in this area would prevent employees from getting to work or home.
Furthermore, government buildings are often targeted and can be damaged or destroyed.
Responders Responders are often on the front line of events. Responders can be targeted, causing
injury to personnel, damage to facilities, and the loss of equipment. Responders are often
injured during major incidents and, even when events are brought under control, may be
seen as an enemy of the community causing long-term trust issues.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Pipelines carrying oil are a potential target for demonstrators. Oil trains
have been targeted frequently in Washington; however, these protests do not
tend to turn violent.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems are rarely the primary target of a
demonstration and may only be peripherally impacted.
• Transportation: One of the largest impacts from a major incident is disruption to
transportation. Transit facilities and assets like busses may be destroyed. Roads
can be closed for hours or days.
• Communications: Communication systems are redundant and are unlikely to be
severely impacted by a civil disorder incident.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Major incidents can cause long-term damage to public confidence in the jurisdiction or,
especially, public safety elements of jurisdiction governance. This can cause either
alienation or, when response is proactive, help rebuild confidence and trust. To best
preserve and grow confidence, a jurisdiction must respond quickly and effectively but
without excessive force. The general public expects a quick restoration of order and
protection of property while activists may demand accountability from officials and safety
for peaceful demonstrators.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
68
Regional Risk Profile: Cyber Incident
Hazard Description
Information technology has become embedded in the ways we conduct business, work and live. In a
government context technology is fundamental to public services such as providing healthcare, public
transportation, law enforcement, citizen engagement, public utilities, and supporting tax and rate payers.
A cyber-incident can have a severe impact on technology and therefore local government’s capability to
deliver services and conduct daily operations.
A cyber incident is defined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the 2016 National Cyber
Incident Response Plan as “an event occurring on or conducted through a computer network that
actually or imminently jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity or availability of computers, information
on communication systems or networks, physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or
information systems, or information resident thereon23.
• Confidentiality refers to the ability to preserve authorized restrictions on information access and
disclosure, including means for protecting personal privacy and proprietary information.
• Integrity speaks to guarding against improper information modification or destruction and
ensuring information non-repudiation and authenticity.
o Data Integrity – The property that data has not been altered in an unauthorized manner.
Data integrity covers data in storage, during processing, and while in transit.
o System Integrity – The quality that a system has when it performs its intended function in
an unimpaired manner, free from unauthorized manipulation of the system, whether
intentional or accidental.
• Availability refers to the ability to ensure timely and reliable access to and use of information24
The nature of a cyber-incident differs from other hazards such as a landslide or an earthquake because it
often lacks physical presence or evidence. The Ponemon Institute estimates the average time to identify
a data breach is 206 days. When the breach is discovered it has already occurred or is still ongoing.25 The
average time it takes to fully contain a breach, after it has been identified, is 73 days. Organizations have
seen an increase in the identification and containment mean time over the last few years, which has been
attributed to the increasing severity of criminal and malicious attacks.26
Wherever information technologies exist and are used, cyber incidents can occur. As the County
becomes more and more dependent on its IT infrastructure it also becomes more vulnerable to IT
related disruptions. Most cyber incidents can be categorized as malicious attacks, human errors or as
23 National Cyber Incident Response Plan, Department of Homeland Security, December 2016 p. 8
24 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800 -12r1.pdf 10/14/19
25 IBM 2019 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 50
26 IBM 2019 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 50
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
69
system glitches. More than 50% of the incidents are estimated to be caused by malicious or criminal
attackers.27
Cyber incidents based on actors with malicious intent can be driven by criminal motives for profit,
extortion, and theft or to damage, destroy or interfere with infrastructure systems. Organizations
worldwide experience malicious attacks on a daily basis. Most of the attacks are unstructured with little
to no organization behind them such as a phishing attack or malware hidden in a downloaded file.
Attacks are carried out with tools aiming to take advantage of well-known flaws and are often detected
by security tools such as antivirus programs before they cause harm. However, an undetected attack can
cause significant harm to an organization before it’s detected and fully contained. More sophisticated
attacks with a specific target are less common, harder to detect and take longer to contain. These attacks
are more likely to have a catastrophic impact on an organization causing disruptions over some or all of
the network. Over the last few years attackers have been targeting organizations using sophisticated
ransomware, which encrypts the organizations’ data and demands a ransom to decrypt it. Other attacks
include cyber terrorism, aiming to cause sufficient destruction or disruption, to generate fear or
undermine entities such as an organization, a region, a sector or a country.
Cyber incidents due to human errors or system glitches can occur because of negligence, lack of
implemented policies and/or process, unclear roles and responsibilities, insufficient training,
misconfigurations etc. Such incidents are often identified and contained faster than disruptions caused
by malicious actors28. Human errors and system glitches can expose confidential data, decrease
availability and put data integrity at risk.
Data centers, physical IT infrastructure and hardware are vulnerable to other hazards such as long
lasting power outages, flooding, earthquakes and fires. In the event of such hazards it is likely that the
disruption to information technology will slow down the recovery time of critical communication
systems, essential services and hardware.
Unshielded electronic and electrical equipment is sensitive to electromagnetic pulses (EMP). An EMP is
an intense burst of electromagnetic energy resulting from natural (e.g. solar storms or space weather) or
man-made (e.g. nuclear or pule-power device). An EMP can temporarily affect or permanently damage
electronic equipment. Solar storms which affects electronic equipment are rare but have occurred in the
past impacting GPS satellite systems and signals sent to ground-based receivers29.
The impact of a cyber-incident ranges from minimal to catastrophic depending on factors such as;
magnitude of internal and external impact, affected systems, length of the incident, the nature of the
data and so on. A small earthquake, a misconfiguration which was discovered early without any
implications or a stolen encrypted laptop without sensitive data could have a minimal impact on the
County. Whereas a ransomware attack which encrypts all or most of the County’s data could have a
27 IBM 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 6
28 IBM 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 9
29 NASA Solar Flares, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/X -class-flares.html 2019-10-14
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
70
catastrophic impact on the organization leading to loss of County operational capability, economic and
reputational loss as well as life, health and safety risks and financial loss for individuals who live, work or
visit the region.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Regardless of the nature of the cyber incident, any area where an IT system supports the County
services can be vulnerable. In order to reduce the risk of cyber incidents it is important to manage
threats and vulnerabilities, have established backup systems, incident response plans and exercises,
disaster recovery and continuity of operations. The magnitude of a cyber-incident varies greatly based
on the extent and duration of the impact. The extent varies based on which specific system or data is
affected, possible warning time, the ability to preempt the incident and activate a well-known and
effective incident response plan.
Minor cyber incidents which are identified early and are recoverable may have some impact on daily
operations before fully contained but won’t have any significant effect on the County. A significant
incident can have a major impact not only to the County but the region. Such incidents may result in
safety and health risks, financial losses for the County and the region, reputational damage and inability
to comply with regulatory requirements including penalties and fines. It may also affect the County’s
ability to achieve critical strategic objectives and fulfill Executive priorities.
The County’s business essential services are critical to support life, health and safety in the region. Cyber
incidents affecting those systems and services can have catastrophic impact on people who live, work or
visit the region if they’re not available within 0-72 hours after the initial disruption. The business
essential services also include functions with legal requirements.
The County manages public, sensitive and confidential data on behalf of people who live, work and visit
the region. Some of the data is regulated by federal law, Revised Code of Washington and national or
global compliance regulations. Unauthorized, unanticipated, or unintentional disclosure of confidential
data could result in loss of reputational damage, or legal action against the County and can, amongst
other things result in identity theft or financial loss for impacted individuals. Personal Health
Information (PHI) is more valuable on the black market than regular Personally Identifiable
Information (PII). Therefore, there is a higher incentive for malicious attackers to target PHI than
sensitive data such as PII. Loss of critical system or data availability, functionality and operational
effectiveness, for example, may result in loss of productivity, thus impeding the end users’ performance
of their functions in supporting the County’s operations. If hardware, computer systems, networks,
servers and backups are damaged due to other hazards or accidental or deliberate damage, it can cause
additional delays. System and data integrity is lost if unauthorized changes are made to the data or IT
system by either intentional or accidental acts. If the loss of system or data integrity is not corrected,
continued use of the contaminated system or corrupted data could result in inaccuracy, fraud, or
erroneous decisions.
King County has services relying on SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems.
SCADA systems are industry control systems which are used to control infrastructure and facility based
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
71
processes such as wastewater treatment and airports. Cyber incidents affecting those type of services can
have severe impact on areas such as the environment, health, safety and financial consequences for the
region.
Not all IT systems utilized by the County are owned or managed by the County. The County relies on
numerous third party vendors and partners who are also exposed to cyber incidents and can therefore
be vulnerable to cyber disruptions in other organizations.
Cyber incidents occur daily across the globe. The quantity of information being stolen by malicious
attackers, destroyed or exposed as a result of a human error or made unavailable due to a system glitch
is growing each year. King County is the recipient of a constant variety of attacks ranging from scans for
weaknesses in our defenses, malware, phishing, and internet based attacks, as well as insider threats. The
timeline below comprises state, national and international events and exemplifies consequences of a
cyber-incidents.
Year Location Description
2006 United States Geomagnetic storms and solar flares disabled the Global Positioning System
(GPS) signal acquisition over the United States.
2007 Estonia Dispute regarding movement of a Russian statue led to a cyber-attack that
crippled websites for government services, banks, media outlets etc.
2008 Turkey Hackers disabled communications, alarms, and caused a crude oil refinery on
the Turkish pipeline to explode, destroying operations and facilities.
2013 United States Hackers stole credit card information from over 40 million Target customers.
2014 Washington State Washington State experienced a six hour long 911 system outage due to
human error.
2014 United States 280 000 AT&T accounts was breached by insiders who accessed user
information with malicious intent.
2015 United States The Office of Personal Management experienced a malicious attack resulting
in over 20 million compromised personnel records.
2016 Global Over 1 billion Yahoo user accounts were compromised in 2013 and was
discovered and communicated in 2016.
2017 Global Geomagnetic storm affected power grids and radios.
2017 Sweden Due to human error the National Transport Agency exposed its entire
database including military secrets and personal identifiable information of
individuals in the witness protection program, military personnel, and police
officers.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
72
2017 Global WannaCry, a ransomware virus affected over 200 000 computers across 150
countries.
2017 Washington State The University of Washington suffered a HIPAA data breach exposing
information of nearly 1 million patients due to human error.
2018 United States The City of Atlanta, Georgia and the Colorado Department of transportation
suffered a ransomware attack named SamSam.
2018 United states The City of Valdez in Alaska was targeted by a ransomware attack that
remained dormant for weeks before doing any damage.
2019 Washington State The City of Sammamish was targeted by a ransomware attack that shut down
many city online services, requiring the city manager to declare an emergency
and request support from law enforcement and King County IT and hire a
tech company to help resolve the crisis.
Scenario Drivers
Cyber incidents can occur at any time, with or without pervious warnings. Cyber incidents based on an
actors malicious intent can be driven by criminal motives for profit, extortion, and theft or to damage,
destroy or interfere with infrastructure systems. Cyber incidents due to human errors or system
glitches can occur because of negligence, lack of policy and/or process, unclear roles and
responsibilities, insufficient training, misconfigurations etc.
Advanced Persistent
Threat (APT)
An attack in which the attacker gains access to a network and remains
undetected. APT attacks are designed to steal data instead of cause
damage.
Adware A form of software that displays advertising content in a manner that is
potentially unexpected and unwanted by users, which may also include
various user-tracking functions (similar to spyware).
Denial-of-Service Attack
(DoS)
Attacks that focus on disrupting service to a network in which attackers
send high volumes of data until the network becomes overloaded and
can no longer function.
Drive-by Downloads Malware is downloaded unknowingly by the victims when they visit an
infected site.
Electro Magnetic Pulse
(EMP)
Intense burst of electromagnetic energy resulting from natural (e.g. solar
storms or space weather) or man-made (e.g. nuclear or pule-power
device) which can temporarily affect or permanently damage electronic
equipment.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
73
Hazards Earthquakes, flooding and extreme weather can cause a verity of cyber
incidents including loss of data and system availability and
communications.
Malvertising Malware downloaded when the victim clicks on an affected ad.
Malware Software that can destroy data, affect computer performance, cause a
crash, or even allow spammers to send email through an account.
Man-in-the-Middle MITM attacks mirror victims and endpoints for online information
exchange. In this type of attack, the MITM communicates with the
victim who believes is interacting with the legitimate endpoint website.
The MITM is also communicating with the actual endpoint website by
impersonating the victim. As the process goes through, the MITM
obtains entered and received information from both the victim and
endpoint
Password Attacks Third party attempts to crack a user’s password and subsequently gain
access to a system. Password attacks do not typically require malware,
but rather stem from software applications on the attacker’s system.
These applications may use a variety of methods to gain access,
including generating large numbers of generated guesses, or dictionary
attacks, in which passwords are systematically tested against all of the
words in a dictionary. Due to users reusing the same password for
different systems a password attack targeting an unrelated system can
give the attacker access to a more sought after system.
Pharming Arranging for a web’s site traffic to be redirected to a different,
fraudulent site, either through a vulnerability in an agency’s server
software or through the use of malware on a user’s computer system.
Phishing Malicious email messages that ask users to click a link or download a
program. Phishing attacks may appear as legitimate emails from trusted
third parties.
Physical damage Intentional or unintentional damage to physical infrastructure such as
data center, hardware, power grids etc.
Ransomware Malware that locks a person’s keyboard or computer to prevent them
from accessing data until you pay a ransom, usually in Bitcoin. A
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
74
popular variation of this is ransom crypto ware, which corrupts files
using a private key that only the attacker possesses
Social Engineering In the context of cyber-security, this refers to an effort to
psychologically manipulate a person, especially through
misrepresentation or deception, to gain access to information. The
manipulation often relies on the trusting nature of most individuals, or
makes use of many persons’ natural reluctance to offend others or
appear too mistrustful. The ruse may involve creating impressions that
make things appear more benevolent, trustworthy, and reliable than they
actually are. Some schemes are very complex, and involve several stages
of manipulation over a substantial period of time.
Social Engineered Trojans Programs designed to mimic legitimate processes (e.g. updating
software, running fake antivirus software) with the end goal of human-
interaction caused infection. When the victim runs the fake process, the
Trojan is installed on the system.
Spear Phishing A form of phishing that targets a specific individual, company, or
agency, usually relying on an accumulation of information to make
subsequent ruses more effective when further probing the target, until a
successful security breach finally becomes possible.
Spoofing Attempting to gain access to a system by posing as an authorized user,
synonymous with impersonating, masquerading, or mimicking.
Attempting to fool a network user into believing that a particular site
was reached, when actually the user has been led to access a false site
that has been designed to appear authentic, usually for the purpose of
gaining valuable information, tricking the user into downloading
harmful software, or providing funds to the fraudsters.
Spyware Software that allows others to gain private information about a user,
without that person’s knowledge or consent, such as passwords, credit
card numbers, social security numbers, or account information.
Structured Query
Language injection (SQLi)
Attackers use malicious SQL code for backend database manipulation to
access information that was not intended to be displayed.
Virus A program or code that attaches itself to a legitimate, executable
program, and then reproduces itself when that program is run.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
75
Worm A self-contained program (or set of programs) that is able to spread
copies of itself to other computer systems, usually through network
connections of email attachments
Zero-day exploit An attack which occurs the same day a vulnerability is discovered in the
software. The vulnerability is exploited by the attacker before it can be
fixed by a patch or a permanent solution.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Essential Services The County has identified a number of essential services which are
critical to support life, health, safety and legal requirements in the
region.
Critical SCADA Systems Industrial control systems which are used to control infrastructure and
facility based processes such as wastewater treatment and airports.
Critical facilities Facilities such as data centers and incident response facilities.
Critical devices Smart devices paired to essential services such as medical devices.
Communication system Although separate communication systems can be utilized in the event
of a severe incident the County still relies on its communications
systems for daily operations.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Anyone who is present in King County during a cyber-incident can be
impacted. Impact on residents may include: delayed services such as
transportation, impaired or cancelled healthcare services, decreased or
no availability of public services, information, and financial loss and
exposed or lost information.
Vulnerable populations
Individuals who have a direct dependency on King County for health
and safety reasons are vulnerable to cyber incidents impacting their
needed services. Other vulnerable populations include individuals and
organizations who depend on an income from the County if payments
can’t be processed, who are dependent on critical public services or
County provided transportation.
Property Cyber incidents can cause physical damage if property such as facilities,
devices, infrastructure, or end consumers are affected by the disruption.
An incident including utilities, life support devices, transportation or
telecommunications may lead to extensive property damages.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
76
The economy The financial impact of a cyber-incident ranges from little or minimal to
significant depending upon duration, scale, affected systems, devices
and users. A significant, extended cyber incident affecting most or all of
the County’s operations would likely impact the local and possibly
regional economy for some time. An incident of that magnitude would
likely creates significant, potentially long-term or ongoing challenges to
the County's ability to fund essential services and activities related to
Executive priorities.
Organizations who experiences cyber incidents which leads to data
breaches of sensitive or confidential information can be subjects to legal
fines and financial penalties if, for example, Personal Healthcare
Information (PHI) is lost or exposed or personal identifiable
information including social security numbers, credit card information
or driver’s license information is breached. Organizations who fail to
meet regulatory and contractual obligations due to a cyber-incident may
have significant cost for legal fees, settlements and fines.
The environment The loss of control or availability of the County’s SCADA systems
could potentially impact the environment in the region if, for example,
it causes the release of hazardous materials or improper disposal of
waste water.
Health systems Last years’ cyber incidents including ransomware attacks, distributed
denial of service attacks, system glitches and human error in healthcare
systems all demonstrate that cyber incidents, are capable of triggering
emergencies that impact patient care and public health. If an agency
cannot access its own EHR, patient care could be delayed or hindered.
Furthermore if other critical healthcare related systems and devices can’t
be accessed or data integrity guaranteed patient safety will be at risk.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
Minor cyber incidents which are identified early and are recoverable
may have some impact on daily operations before fully contained but
won’t lead to significant loss of operations. A significant incident
impacting one or more functions and businesses can severely affect the
County’s capability to perform critical operations. However, not all daily
operations are critical. The County has defined its essential services,
which need to become operational within 0-72 hours after disruption to
ensure the organizations capability to maintain critical healthcare, safety
and legal and regulatory needs.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
77
In the event of a cyber-incident which render a non-critical service
unavailable the County may lose revenue, experience loss of
productivity and risks losing data over time.
Responders Emergency responders may not be able to access their mission critical
system, experience delays or performance issues. If data confidentiality
is lost the public may lose their trust in organization and system. If data
integrity is lost it may put patients and first responders at risk. King
County may experience a prolonged incident response if the disruption
is long lasting, complexed and exhausting internal resources.
Infrastructure systems • Energy – Information technology has a direct dependency to
energy. A hazard impacting the power system can therefore have a
secondary effect on the County and lead to a cyber-incident due to
loss of power to devices rendering systems and data unavailable,
loss of power to cooling systems which can cause overheating and
fires in server rooms and data centers. Critical infrastructure have
backup generators. Ensuring fuel delivery during long lasting power
outages for the generators is critical.
A cyber incident impacting King County and no other organization
should not have an effect on the energy system.
• Water/Wastewater – Both water and wastewater facilities and
infrastructure are vulnerable to cyber incidents on their SCADA
systems, which can result in the release of hazardous material and
malfunctioning systems. Such scenarios can result in environmental
impact and create health and safety risks in the region.
• Transportation – Transportation systems are vulnerable to attacks
on their SCADA systems, which may result in trains and vehicles
not operating as planned, airport functionality issues, delays,
cancellations which can result in a secondary economic impact in
the region due to loss of productive if people can’t access public
transportation to and from work.
• Communications – The County relies on different types of
technology based communications methods such as its website,
VOIP and email to conduct its daily operations. A cyber incident
impacting the VOIP or email system would quickly result in a loss
of productivity, a negative consumer experience and could
potentially halter or delay some of the County’s operations.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
Recent cyber-incidents involving government agencies such as the
ransomware attack on the City of Atlanta shows that such large scale
disruption generate National media interest; third party actions;
jeopardizes perceptions of effective operations, Executive priorities, and
public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
78
Regional Risk Profile: Dam Failure
Hazard Description
Dam failure is an uncontrolled, oftentimes, rapid release of water from an impoundment.30 The impact
of failure varies on factors such as impoundment size, steepness, land use downstream of the dam, and
speed of failure. For larger dams, failure is characterized by a flood wave with high velocities. Smaller
dams may only raise water levels slightly and slowly. The result of a dam failure can result in loss of life,
property, infrastructure damage, public health impacts, safe drinking water, and environmental
degradation within the inundation zone, but may have secondary effects on populations outside of the
flooded area.
To better understand the threat locally of dam failure, the planning team worked with our own Dam
Safety Officer who manages the King County Emergency Management’s Dam Safety program. The
program consists of creating response plans for high hazard dams in the community, educating at-risk
populations of the threat of dam failure, and connecting poor condition dams to resources that are
available for repair or removal of the dam. The King County Emergency Management Dam Safety
30 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 10.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
79
Officer works closely with Washington State Department of Ecology’s Dam and Wells Manager to
share information and create a regional effort to heighten dam safety in the County. The information on
dams in the hazard profile are from the State Department of Ecology’s Inventory of Dams.
The Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Office is the regulating body over non-
federal dams that impound at least 10-acre feet of water in the State of Washington. The DSO permits
all new dam construction, inspects all high and significant hazard dams every 5 years, and requires that
all deficiencies be remedied.
Dams serve the County in a variety of ways, agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, flood control,
and recreation. King County has 127 dams located in the County. All but eleven of these dams are
embankment-type dams. Contrary to the popular images of dams like Hoover, these dams are smaller
and are typically made of a mixture of compacted materials such as soil, clay, and rock. A semi-pervious
outer covering with a dense impervious core gives embankment dams their ability to resist seepage and
water pressure. The other dams are made of concrete.
While there are 127 dams in King County, there are 21 other dams situated in neighboring counties that
impact the County if they were to fail. Out of the 147 total dams, 94 threaten human life. A full list of
dams that impact King County can be found at the end of this section.
Hazard Class Number
1A = High – Greater than 300 lives at risk 10
1B = High – 31 to 300 lives at risk 18
1C = High – 7 to 30 lives at risk 42
2* = Significant – 1 to 6 lives at risk 17
2D = Significant – 1 to 6 lives at risk 7
2E = Significant – Environmental or economic impact 3
3 = Low – No lives at risk 50
* Legacy classification, parsing all 2's into 2D's and 2E's 31
Dams fail for a variety of reasons, but the four most common are:32
• Overtopping, 34% - caused by the reservoir reaching capacity and water spilling over the top of
a dam
• Foundation defects, 30% - caused by settlement and slope instability
• Piping and seepage, 20% - when water travels through the dam and causes internal erosion
• Conduits and valves, 10% - Piping of embankment material into the conduit through joints or
cracks
31 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2019. Inventory of Dams
Report.
32 Washington State Department of Ecology – Water Resource Program – Dam Safety Office. Accessed 8/28/2019.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Dams/Emergency-planning-response/Incidents-failures.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
80
33
Dam failure events are infrequent and may coincide with other events, such as earthquakes, landslides,
excessive rainfall, wildfires, lahars and snowmelt. The average age of dams in King County is 47. As
infrastructure ages, increased spending is needed to maintain its integrity.
Following are a selection of events that may cause a dam to fail.
Earthquake34
Earthquakes can result in damage or failure of a dam. Earthquake effects on
dams mainly depend on dam types. For example, the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
damaged 48 dams, causing one embankment type dam to fail35. Safety concerns
for embankment dams subjected to earthquakes involve either the loss of
stability due to a loss of strength of the embankment and foundation materials or
deformations such as slumping, settlement, cracking and planer or rotational
slope failures. Dams are engineered to withstand the Maximum Considered
Earthquake, but older dams may have been engineered before we fully
understood the earthquake risk in the region.
Climate Change36
While dam failure probabilities are low. The chance of flooding associated with
changes of dam operation in response to weather patterns is higher. Dam
designs and operations are developed in part from hydrographs and historical
records. If weather patterns experience significant changes over time due to the
impacts of climate change, the dam design and operations may no longer be
valid for the changed condition. Release rates and impound thresholds may have
33 Washington State Department of Ecology – Water Resource Program – Dam Safety Office. 2018. Status of High and
Significant Hazard Dams. Page 6.
34 KUOW. Seattle’s Faults: Maps that Highlight Our Shaky Ground. Accessed 8/29/19.
http://archive.kuow.org/post/seattles-faults-maps-highlight-our-shaky-ground
35 International Commission on Large Dams. 2013. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Dams. Page 9.
36 Climate Impacts Group - University of Washington. 2018. New Projections of Changing Heavy Precipitation in King
County. Page 40.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
81
to be changed. This would result in increased discharges downstream, thus
increasing the probability and severity of flooding.
Landslides37
The integrity of a dam or reservoir can be affected by a landslide if they fail or
move. Landslides can be triggered by heavy rainfall, snowmelt, reservoir
drawdown, or earthquakes. Landslides can occur upstream in the reservoir, in a
canyon downstream of a dam, or within the abutment of a dam. A landslide into
the reservoir can generate a wave large enough to overtop a dam. Sloshing back
and forth in the reservoir can result in multiple waves overtopping the dam. If
the waves are large enough, there could be downstream consequences can just
from a wave overtopping the dam even if it doesn’t fail. If enough large waves
overtop an embankment dam or a concrete dam with erodible abutments, a
failure could potentially result38. Some dams in the County have been built
abutting a landslide. Often, these are ancient landslides that have stopped
moving or are moving very slowly. However, if a landslide moves far enough, it
can crack the core of an embankment dam, resulting in pathways for internal
erosion to initiate, or disrupting the abutment support of a dam, resulting in
failure.39
Wildfires40
Many of the County’s highest hazard dams lie within wildfire-prone areas.
Wildfires can damage dams, such as Eightmile dam near Leavenworth, directly
by burning the surface of the dam or spillway and damaging other facilities at the
dam. But the main threat from wildfires is how the surrounding watershed
behaves. Heavy rains in a burned area can create:
• More and faster runoff from rainfall events, especially high-intensity
storms.
• Large amounts of sediment, which may reduce storage capacity in a
reservoir.
• Debris flows (mudslides) or downed timber, which may obstruct access
to the dam.
• Debris flows from hill slopes near spillways, which may obstruct
spillways.
• More floating debris (dead trees, branches, sticks) in a reservoir, which
may obstruct spillways41
37 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Geological Portal Information. Accessed 8/28/2019.
https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#natural_hazards
38 U.S Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation. 2015. Risk Management: H-2 Landslide Risks. Page 1.
39 Quartz. 2015. The World’s Biggest Hydro Power Project May Be Causing Giant Landslides in China.
https://qz.com/436880/the-worlds-biggest-hydropower-project-may-be-causing-giant-landslides-in-china/
40 NW News Network. 2019. Eightmile Dam Near Leavenworth Has New Spillway, Is Being Monitored.
https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/post/eightmile-dam-near-leavenworth-has-new-spillway-being-monitored
41 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2015. Focus on Dams
and Wildfires. Page 1.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
82
Additionally, new development, outside of the 100 year flood plain, continues in dam inundation zones,
meaning the population-at-risk from dam failure will continue to rise. Below shows development
outside of the floodplain, but within a dam failure inundation area.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County has high hazard 1A dams that sit on the Green, White, Cedar, and Tolt Rivers.
Additionally, Culmback dam in Snohomish County would flood parts of the Lower Snoqualmie Valley.
The Green, White and Lower Snoqualmie Valleys are the areas of greatest concern for dam failure.
Smaller privately owned and government dams are also a concern, as they may not have access to
funding streams that other larger municipal governments do.
Four dam failure incidents have occurred in King County; they account for all lives lost due to dam
failure in Washington State:42
• December 1918 - Masonry Dam near North Bend had excessive seepage, which caused a
mudflow, destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; no lives lost.
• February 1932 - Eastwick railroad fill failed. A slide caused railroad fill to back up and fail,
destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; 7 lives were lost.
• July 1976 - Increased discharge from Mud Mountain Dam caused a surge in flow killing two
children playing in the White River near Auburn.
• January 1997 - N. Boeing Creek Dam in Shoreline failed due to excessive seepage, poor
hydraulics, and no emergency spillway during a large storm event; no lives were lost.
Other notable dam incidents in King County:
• In January 2009 two depressions were discovered in the right abutment of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers’ Howard Hanson Dam. While repairs were being conducted, there
42 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2019. Washington State
Notable Dam Failures and Incidents.
Green River 2009
Green River 2012
100-Year Floodplain
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
83
was a 1 in 3 chance of a 25,000 cfs release down the Green River which would have caused
significant flooding. The USACE was able to fully fix the dam by 2011 before a substantial
flood ensued. King County and local jurisdictions spent $30 million on flood protection that
wasn’t reimbursed by FEMA.43
• In January 2009, Mud Mountain Dam, owned and operated by the USACE, released a higher
than usual flow down the White River during a heavy rain event. As a result, 100 homes were
flooded. Since then, King County Flood Control District, Washington State, and Pierce County
jointly funded a levee setback to reduce the risk of flooding and increase habitat restoration44.
Scenario Drivers
Howard A
Hanson
Howard Hanson, constructed in 1961, is a federally owned and operated dam by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Its primary purpose is to provide flood
control in the winter and fish enhancement in the summer. It dramatically reduced the
amount of flooding that the Green River Valley experienced before its construction.
The right abutment of the dam is the toe of a large landslide. Seepage problems can
occur for dams built into landslides. As mentioned previously, landslide activity can
pose a serious risk to dams. Many mitigation actions have been taken to reduce risk at
the dam, such as a gravel blanket and additional vertical and horizontal drains in the
drainage tunnel have all drastically improved the safety of the dam. If preventative
actions are not taken, internal erosion could fail the dam.
South Fork Tolt
Dam
The South Fork Tolt Dam is owned and operated by the City of Seattle. It is a
hydroelectric dam that also provides drinking water for 30% of 1.3 million people
across the greater Seattle area. South Fork Tolt Dam is a large embankment type dam,
equipped with a morning glory spillway.
The Tolt dam has known landslide hazards below the dam, and above the reservoir. If
a slide were to occur below the dam, the slide may create a dam of its own. Engineers
would need to evaluate what action should be taken. The Tolt Dam would have to
lower the amount of flow downstream why the risk is being assessed. Additionally, if a
slide were to occur in the reservoir, an overtopping wave may be generated that could
cause the dam to fail or send a flood wave downstream.
Mud Mountain
Dam
Mud Mountain Dam is a United States Army Corps of Engineer owned and operated
dam on the White River. Its primary purpose is to provide flood control for nearly
43 Seattle Times. 2011. FEMA won’t pick up $30 million tab to prepare for flooding.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fema-wont-pick-up-30-million-tab-to-prepare-for-flooding/
44 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Water and Land Resource Division. 2018. Lower White
River Countyline Levee Setback Project. https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/wlr/sections-programs/river-
floodplain-section/capital-projects/lower-white-river-countyline-a-street.aspx
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
84
400,000 residents in King and Pierce Counties. Typically, there isn’t a reservoir being
impounded by the dam. During heavy rains or times of snowmelt, engineers will
impound the water and slowly release it downstream to avoid flooding residents.
The White River is a glacial river fed by Mt. Rainier. This leaves the possibility that a
lahar, triggered by an earthquake, volcanic activity, or heavy rains could cause a debris
flow that would block the intake structure on the dam. Such an event would decrease
the storage capacity of the reservoir and cause flows to travel over the spillway. The
loss in flood control capabilities on the White River would leave the Green, White, and
Puyallup River Valleys susceptible to flooding.
Culmback Dam
Situated in Snohomish County, but inundating a portion of the King County’s Lower
Snoqualmie Valley, the Culmback Dam is owned and operated by Snohomish Public
Utility District One. Culmback offers hydroelectric power generation, flood control,
drinking water, and recreational benefits to the region.
Culmback’s morning glory spillway is designed to maintain adequate levels of
freeboard in maximum probable flood events. Changes in hydrology affect the amount
of water a dam would need to convey downstream to keep it from failing. Culmback
Dam’s watershed lies within a densely forested area that slows the speed in which
water enters the reservoir, prevents sediment from entering the reservoir, and prevents
debris flows. A wildfire around the dam would increase the hydrologic strain on the
dam. An increased flow could be compensated with larger releases from the dam, but
would result in flooding of the Town of Sultan. If not enough water could be
discharged, an overtopping scenario at the dam would prove very dangerous.
Lake Tapps
Lake Tapps is a reservoir that sits in Pierce County made up of a system of dikes. If
particular dikes were to fail, they would inundate Auburn and portions of the Green
and White River Valley. Lake Tapps was built by Puget Sound Energy in 1911 and ran
a hydroelectric program until 2004. Lake Tapps was purchased by Cascade Water
Alliance in 2009 who currently owns and operates the reservoir. Its primary function is
to provide drinking water to a group of contracting King County cities and water
districts.
In addition to providing drinking water, Lake Tapps is also a residential community,
many of whom use the Lake for recreational purposes. While residents are instructed
to stay off the dikes, there is no physical security to keep individuals from accessing
the structure. Many dikes have publically accessible roads. Acts of terrorism or
sabotage could provide a serious threat to the integrity of the levees.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
85
Madsen Creek
Flow and Water
Control Pond
Madsen Creek Pond is a King County-owned dam. Constructed in 2008, its primary
purpose is to provide flood control in extreme rainfall events. There is oftentimes no
impoundment behind the dam in summer months when there isn’t consistent rainfall.
Madsen Creek Pond is designed to store runoff from a 100-year 24-hour storm and
still maintain freeboard necessary to prevent flooding downstream. While the dam is
comparatively very young as climate patterns become more unpredictable, Madsen
Creek Pond and other dams may need to be retrofitted to accommodate the change in
probable maximum precipitation. If actions were not taken to adjust to the new
hydrology, chances of failure from an overtopping situation or an uncontrolled release
would become higher.
Cedar Falls
Project Masonry
Dam
The Masonry Dam within the Cedar Falls Project is one of the oldest dams in the
County. It was built in 1914 and currently is owned and operated by the City of Seattle.
The dam serves two purposes, hydroelectric power generation and water supply. The
dam is a concrete gravity dam with an emergency spillway, service spillway, power
tunnel intake, and a low-level outlet.
While there have been fewer failures of concrete dams than earthen dams in general45,
this doesn’t mean that failure is unrealistic. The Masonry dam sits near the Rattlesnake
Mountain Fault. While concrete dams have escaped failure in earthquake scenarios,
minor damage has been observed. The Masonry Dam would need to be assessed for
damage after an earthquake for cracking or other deficiencies in the structure or
supporting structures. If deficiencies are noted, action must be taken to ensure that the
dam doesn’t fail. Earthquakes can also trigger landslides around the dam. Finally, large
earthquakes can devastate communities, created a resource-scarce environment,
potentially making it more difficult to find resources.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Small Local Government
and Privately Owned
Dams
These dams may not have access to funding, or have employees dedicated to
dam safety. This means that there is a higher chance that maintenance and
deficiencies go unmediated. Thus, leading to a higher chance of dam failure.
Lack of Public
Knowledge
Most dams use a “For Official Use Only” designation on their inundation
maps. This means that inundation maps only be shared on a need to know
basis. A lack of public knowledge about dams, their presence in the
community, and their failure potential creates an added challenge in creating
a resilient community.
45 Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 1989. Failure of Concrete Dams. Page 4.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
86
Out of Date or Missing
Emergency Action Plans
High and significant dams are required to have Emergency Action Plans in
Washington State. Missing EAPs and out of date EAPs pose a risk if owners
are unequipped to deal with an emergency at their dam.
Poor and Unsatisfactory
Dams
Any dam that is designated as “poor” or “unsatisfactory” by the Washington
State Dam Safety Office should be brought to a higher standard.
Priority Impact Areas
With all the dams in the county, only a small amount of information can be shared here due to “For
Official Use Only Designation”. Another reason is that there is a lack of in-depth study done on dam
failure impacts to King County. The best and most available estimates for dam failure damages/impacts
are from the potential high release scenario at Howard Hanson Dam in 2009. Examples provided here
relate to those studies.
King County
residents
Dam Name Estimated Impacted
King County Population
(Full Pool Failure)
Estimated Impacted
King County Population
(Sunny Day Failure)*
Mud Mountain 24,480 2,031
Howard Hanson 20,845 6,235
South Fork Tolt 2,291 N/A
Lake Youngs 2,744 2,139
Culmback 145 N/A
Other Dams Combined
(Estimate)**
5,295
N/A
46
*Sunny day failure assumes a regular pool
**Hazard class median reach of range
Populations are based on census data. Areas such as the Green River Valley experience
drastic differences in day time/night time population being an economic hub. The
46 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 27.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
87
number of people that would need to be evacuated could drastically differ from the
numbers identified in the hazard classification. An estimate in 2009 put a 25,000 cfs
release from Howard Hanson triggering an evacuation on the scale of 200,000 to 300,000
people.47
Vulnerable
populations
Dam inundation areas consist of some of the highest Limited English Proficiency
populations in the County. Spanish, Vietnamese, African Languages, and Mandarin are
all spoken in high percentages in dam inundation areas.
Auburn, Kent, and Riverview School District, as well as private schools, have locations
that are vulnerable to dam failure. Riverview school district practices an evacuation of
Carnation Elementary School and Tolt Middle School every September in the City of
Carnation. Both of these schools would need to be evacuated if the South Fork Tolt
Dam failed.
Preliminary studies indicate that there are at least 15 assisted living facilities within dam
inundation areas.48 Evacuation will take longer for this population than most.
A 2019 report indicates that there 11,199 individuals experiencing homelessness in the
County.49 Alert and warning can be especially challenging for this population as they may
not be tied to a geo-coded database.
47 Seattlepi. 2019. 300,000 might have to evacuate if Green River Floods.
https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/300-000-might-have-to-evacuate-if-Green-River-889468.php
48 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 168.
49 All Home. 2019. Seattle/King County Point-In-Time County of Persons Experiencing Homelessness.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
88
Property Dam Name Residential Buildings
Impacted in King County
(Full Pool Failure)
Estimated Impacted in
King County (Sunny Day
Failure)*
Mud Mountain 9,992 829
Howard Hanson 8,508 2,545
South Fork Tolt 935 N/A
Lake Youngs 1,120 873
Culmback 59 N/A
Other Dams Combined
(Estimate)
N/A
N/A
50
*Sunny day failure assumes a regular pool
2009 modelling of a high release from Howard Hanson.
Structures impacted Lower
Green
In 17,000 cfs impact
area
In 25,000 cfs impact
area
Residential 3,486 1,743 1,937
Commercial 16,798 12,245 13,667
Industrial 7,839 6,549 6,644
51
The economy The Green River Valley is an economic powerhouse in the region. Flood damage
prevented in the valley by Howard Hanson Dam since the January 2009 flood is
50 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 168.
51 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 166.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
89
estimated at $6 billion alone52. The economic impact of a failure would devastate the
region. With large employers, such as Boeing, and economic centers like the South
Center Mall, in the Valley, a dam failure would leave the local economy crippled.
Commutes, roadways, and rail lines would all be impacted by a high release from
Howard Hanson. Unemployment may follow after areas that experience a dam failure.
2009 Hazus modeling for a high release from the Howard Hanson Dam show impacts:53
• At 17,600 cfs flows from a dam failure: - $1.34 billion in economic losses
• At 19,000 cfs flows from dam failure: - $1.97 billion in economic losses
• At 25,000 cfs flows from dam failure: - $3.75 billion in economic losses
An economic analysis is needed to quantify how much impact a complete failure would
have on the local economy.
The
environment
The primary environmental impact from dam failure is natural and manmade debris from
the inundation. Silt, wood, rocks and gravel, hazardous materials, construction debris,
vehicles, dead animals may be carried by inundation waters to locations that may be
spawning areas for local fish, wetlands for birds and reptiles, or inhabited areas that the
County has invested in heavily. While recovery and impact will vary with each inundation
area.
• At 17,600 cfs – 84,000 tons of debris
• At 19,000 cfs – 208,000 tons of debris
• At 25,000 cfs – 280,000 tons of debris 54
Isolating the potential environmental impact of dam failure is obscured by the likelihood
that another hazard, like an earthquake, may have triggered the dam failure.
Health
systems
MultiCare Auburn Medical Center lies within a dam failure inundation area, but further
study is needed to fully understand the impacts on health systems from dam failure.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, Carnation, Pacific, and Algona all have city halls within
inundation areas. Courts, the County Elections office, King County Regional Justice
Center in Kent where Superior Courts, Adult Detention, and other county agencies are
located within dam failure inundation areas as well.
Responders Kent, Pacific, Seattle, Renton Regional Fire Authority, Valley Regional Fire Authority,
and Eastside Fire and Rescue all have fires stations within dam inundation areas.
52 USACE. Howard A. Hanson Dam. Accessed 8/28/2019. https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Locks-and-Dams/Howard-Hanson-Dam/
53 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 166.
54 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 169.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
90
Auburn, Algona, Pacific, Kent, Seattle, State Patrol Crime Lab, and King County Sherriff
all have stations in dam failure inundations.
Infrastructure
systems
Infrastructure impacts vary dramatically based on the individual dam and type of failure.
• Energy- While there are dams that generate power in the County, they provide a
relatively small amount of power. The Cedar, Snoqualmie, Twin Falls and, Tolt
projects account for only 126 max MW output55. Power outages may be long
term in areas where there has been a failure.
• Water/Wastewater – Drinking water availability would be drastically impacted by
a failure of the Masonry, Lake Tapps, Lake Youngs, and Howard Hanson Dams.
A failure of one of the many of the reservoirs around the County would also
challenge water systems. The King County South Treatment Plant also lies
within a dam failure inundation area.
• Transportation- Rail lines (commercial and commuter), LINK Light Rail, bus
routes, numerous state highways, and numerous bridges can be impacted by dam
failure.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction
governance
and
capabilities
A dam failure may cause the public to lose confidence in dam owners to manage local
dams. Depending on the success of the response, the public may also lose confidence in
first responders.
Full List of Dams That Impact King County
Dam Name NIDID
Max
Storage
(acre-
feet)
Age
(Years)
Hazar
d
Classif
icatio
n
Lat,Long County
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
WSDOT DETENTION POND
WA007
07 53 11 1A 47.541919,-
122.013939 King
MADSEN CREEK WEST
BASIN DAM
WA018
62 27 11 1A 47.45887,-
122.146561 King
GREEN LAKE RESERVOIR WA002
12 25 109 1A 47.681486,-
122.314571 King
55 Bonneville Power Administration. 2018 Transmission Plan. 2018. Page 77.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
91
HOWARD A HANSON DAM WA002
98 136700 57 1A 47.27797,-
121.78603 King
MASONRY DAM WA002
55 175000 105 1A 47.41221,-
121.75259 King
YOUNGS LAKE OUTLET
DAM
WA002
54 18908 98 1A 47.402843,-
122.124665 King
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM WA003
00 156000 71 1A 47.139329,-
121.931859 King
TOLT RIVER - SOUTH FORK WA001
77 67200 57 1A 47.693158,-
121.689555 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 1 WA004
18 22000 108 1A 47.241348,-
122.184894 Pierce
CULMBACK DAM WA002
08 200000 36 1A 47.974825,-
121.687897
Snohomi
sh
PANTHER LAKE
BALLFIELD DAM
WA017
37 102 25 1B 47.293417,-
122.337225 King
LAKEMONT STORMWATER
POND
WA016
51 30 27 1B 47.557275,-
122.111876 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
REID POND DAM
WA006
80 69 17 1B 47.537831,-
122.027253 King
PANTHER LAKE
DETENTION DAM
WA017
33 339 25 1B 47.295169,-
122.338302 King
PANTHER LK. FIRST AVE.
DETENTION POND
WA017
47 18 19 1B 47.293334,-
122.336049 King
VOLUNTEER PARK
RESERVOIR
WA002
10 69 118 1B 47.629988,-
122.316676 King
HIGH POINT
REDEVLOPMENT
STORMWATER DAM
WA018
69 22 13 1B 47.549375,-
122.371263 King
LAKE FOREST PARK
RESERVOIR
WA002
17 208 57 1B 47.770339,-
122.278611 King
HIRAM M. CHITTENDEN
LOCKS & DAM
WA003
01 458000 103 1B 47.667639,-
122.39853 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
92
BITTER LAKE RESERVOIR WA002
13 31 61 1B 47.7311,-
122.348669 King
RADAR LAKE (OBRIAN)
DAM
WA001
86 68 46 1B 47.730511,-
122.024173 King
JOHNSON POND DAM WA019
99 25 7 1B 47.66287,-
122.050033 King
CRYSTAL LAKE DAM WA001
95 6 88 1B 47.775751,-
122.107419 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 6 WA004
23 43000 108 1B 47.238839,-
122.163482 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 5 WA004
22 40000 108 1B 47.240926,-
122.167596 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 4 WA002
96 58340 108 1B 47.240789,-
122.170259 Pierce
NEWCASTLE VISTA
DEVELOPMENT POND 3
WA019
08 13 13 1B 47.5347,-
122.161437 King
CEDAR WAY STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA014
04 34 1B 47.778205,-
122.289697
Snohomi
sh
REDMOND RIDGE EAST
POND SRN 2 NO.1
WA018
92 52 11 1C 47.697463,-
122.013921 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
SOUTH POND DAM
WA006
88 67 16 1C 47.541353,-
122.000025 King
SPRINGWOOD
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA016
68 50 27 1C 47.361671,-
122.170302 King
TALUS P5 STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA018
44 12 17 1C 47.534487,-
122.06288 King
SNOQ. RIDGE DOUGLAS
AVE. POND D1 DAM
WA018
04 18 21 1C 47.527247,-
121.880358 King
SOUTH 336TH STREET
STORMWATER DAM NO. 1
WA017
54 46 23 1C 47.295591,-
122.317872 King
PETERSON STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA013
37 90 31 1C 47.665661,-
122.021473 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
93
REBA LAKE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA006
18 105 27 1C 47.467583,-
122.317944 King
MILL POND STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA017
16 16 25 1C 47.268797,-
122.219347 King
YELLOW LAKE OUTLET
DIKE
WA005
59 220 33 1C 47.568281,-
122.009515 King
SOUTH RIDGE
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA018
20 25 17 1C 47.545498,-
122.035664 King
TROSSACHS DETENTION
POND PC-3
WA017
87 18 20 1C 47.601051,-
121.975774 King
TROSSACHS DETENTION
POND PC-2
WA018
33 55 17 1C 47.594216,-
121.972376 King
GARRISON CREEK - 98TH
AVENUE DETENTION DAM
WA006
50 8 23 1C 47.394045,-
122.209814 King
MILL CREEK CANYON
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA014
43 18 37 1C 47.383155,-
122.222898 King
UPPER MILL CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA005
82 100 29 1C 47.362116,-
122.201882 King
SOUTH 336TH STREET
STORMWATER DAM NO. 2
WA017
67 49 23 1C 47.29782,-
122.316762 King
WEYERHAUSER-
ENUMCLAW FLOOD
CONTROL DAM
WA006
36 140 26 1C 47.188673,-
121.929254 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
NPE POND
WA018
67 36 16 1C 47.555811,-
121.998433 King
REDMOND RIDGE CEDAR
DAM
WA018
02 62 21 1C 47.690857,-
122.04408 King
REDMOND RIDGE DRIVE
EC 4N ROADWAY DAM
WA018
37 148 16 1C 47.67683,-
122.026237 King
PORT OF SEATTLE -
LAGOON #3 EXPANSION
WA006
71 256 18 1C 47.432537,-
122.31332 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
94
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
NP2 POND DAM
WA018
58 28 17 1C 47.548397,-
122.000606 King
ICON MATERIALS AUBURN
SEDIMENT POND
WA006
83 200 22 1C 47.271936,-
122.206424 King
BOEING CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA004
83 41 36 1C 47.752036,-
122.360075 King
SNOQUALMIE MILL POND
DAM
WA003
07 396 102 1C 47.529342,-
121.819312 King
WELCOME LAKE DAM WA001
94 260 60 1C 47.724532,-
122.048251 King
TUCK LAKE DAM WA001
80 290 53 1C 47.764918,-
122.03081 King
YOUNGS LAKE NEW INLET
DAM
WA004
15 16836 93 1C 47.420921,-
122.102904 King
MARCEL LAKE DAM WA002
00 350 55 1C 47.692486,-
121.918558 King
LOREENE LAKE DAM WA001
93 86 56 1C 47.31269,-
122.385452 King
MARGARET LAKE DAM WA002
36 1200 86 1C 47.766978,-
121.901433 King
DES MOINES CREEK
REGULATORY DETENTION
FACILITY WEST BERM
WA006
92 160 11 1C 47.428554,-
122.312781 King
DES MOINES CREEK
REGULATORY DETENTION
FACILITY EAST BERM
WA006
93 53 11 1C 47.427034,-
122.311192 King
ICON MATERIALS
SEDIMENT POND 6
WA007
41 1200 4 1C 47.268341,-
122.193221 King
SOUTHWEST GENESEE
STREET DETENTION DAM
WA003
80 52 45 1C 47.564882,-
122.36751 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 11 WA004
27 38000 108 1C 47.238152,-
122.147596 Pierce
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
95
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 3 WA004
21 28000 108 1C 47.249352,-
122.177817 Pierce
KAYAK LAKE DAM WA001
99 230 54 1C 47.782211,-
121.931649
Snohomi
sh
REDMOND RIDGE EAST
POND SRS 1 No. 1
WA019
22 39 6 1C 47.685272,-
122.008553 King
SEATAC AIRPORT POND M WA020
38 27 8 1C 47.464811,-
122.309788 King
SILVER FIRS DETENTION
POND NO. 3
WA017
92 36 21 1C 47.858218,-
122.163964
Snohomi
sh
DES MOINES CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
WA016
49 23 31 2 47.426777,-
122.305916 King
204TH STREET
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN
WA018
19 17 18 2 47.419722,-
122.30375 King
NEWCASTLE RAILROAD
EMBANKMENT DAM
WA006
48 200 119 2 47.522983,-
122.173869 King
QUADRANT EAST CAMPUS
PARCEL 1 DAM
WA018
15 13 19 2 47.311672,-
122.289382 King
SNOQUALMIE FALLS
DIVERSION DAM
WA002
95 818 121 2 47.54149,-
121.837891 King
TOLT RIVER REGULATED
BASIN WEST DAM
WA002
37 35 57 2 47.70383,-
121.791131 King
YOUNGS LAKE CASCADES
DAM
WA002
09 12320 69 2 47.419569,-
122.10876 King
LAKE KITTYPRINCE DAM WA002
01 96 52 2 47.519114,-
121.894508 King
TOLT RIVER REGULATING
BASIN SOUTH DAM
WA002
38 1100 57 2 47.699823,-
121.782893 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 8 WA004
24 34000 108 2 47.239469,-
122.160082 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 9 WA004
25 26000 108 2 47.239893,-
122.157987 Pierce
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
96
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 2B WA004
20 28000 108 2 47.250305,-
122.186157 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO.10 WA004
26 32000 108 2 47.240913,-
122.155031 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 2A WA004
19 20000 108 2 47.249683,-
122.187505 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO.13 WA004
29 10000 108 2 47.190787,-
122.164775 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 12 WA004
28 25000 108 2 47.229823,-
122.14456 Pierce
LAKELAND SOUTH POND
NO.1
WA018
45 12 16 2 47.247554,-
122.226014 Pierce
BOEING CREEK M1
DETENTION DAM
WA017
82 14 21 2D 47.755515,-
122.363653 King
MUTH STORMWATER
POND
WA018
83 37 12 2D 47.411031,-
122.277469 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 2
WA014
85 14 35 2D 47.564342,-
122.019611 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 13
WA006
02 56 29 2D 47.565061,-
122.001408 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 1
WA014
84 28 35 2D 47.567181,-
122.024633 King
GARRISON CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA005
77 45 28 2D 47.406392,-
122.203895 King
CONNER JARVIS EAST
POND
WA020
62 14 1 2D 47.573849,-
122.024296 King
SEATAC AIRPORT POND G WA019
72 27 10 2E 47.459923,-
122.321072 King
SEATAC AIRPORT SE POND WA019
01 14 12 2E 47.433611,-
122.300306 King
CEDAR HILLS LANDFILL
CSW POND
WA020
61 53 3 2E 47.457243,-
122.05295 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
97
ECHO LAKE DAM WA012
64 900 84 3 47.50649,-
121.871224 King
FOSTER WATERSKI POND WA005
99 80 29 3 47.635375,-
121.929033 King
FRATT DAM WA017
00 30 63 3 47.688042,-
122.061542 King
BEAR CREEK FAIRWAY
ESTAE DETENTION POND 1
WA014
35 43 18 3 47.724374,-
122.07023 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (133)
WA004
77 90 36 3 47.61931,-
122.14265 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (149)
WA004
76 92 36 3 47.581056,-
122.167666 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (104)
WA014
40 25 36 3 47.581056,-
122.167666 King
I-405 COAL CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA016
47 40 32 3 47.566555,-
122.180361 King
LINDSLEY DAM WA017
49 13 69 3 47.58387,-
121.980395 King
STAR LAKE CONTROL
WORKS
WA011
76 70 69 3 47.352621,-
122.286532 King
LANDSBURG DIVERSION
DAM
WA015
43 15 84 3 47.375929,-
121.961535 King
TAYLOR DAM WA014
74 10 69 3 47.45545,-
122.025472 King
HIGH WOODLANDS
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA006
13 29 28 3 47.730592,-
122.194303 King
PRESTON MILL POND WA012
97 10 72 3 47.521821,-
121.92759 King
QUADRANT LAKE NO. 1 WA017
40 113 25 3 47.298433,-
122.315121 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
98
SAWYER LAKE OUTLET
STRUCTURE
WA011
77 1116 67 3 47.335379,-
122.045013 King
REDMOND RESERVOIR
DAM
WA006
18 33 92 3 47.713047,-
122.056138 King
SOUTH 120TH STREET
RESERVOIR
WA013
45 15 43 3 47.494916,-
122.315985 King
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE
GOLF COURSE POND M1
WA006
56 70 22 3 47.538501,-
121.863171 King
TROSSACHS STORMWATER
DETENTION POND
WA017
53 14 24 3 47.584739,-
121.971619 King
BOEING AUBURN
DRAINAGE DITCH
DETENTION DAM
WA016
75 7 25 3 47.291489,-
122.251231 King
QUEENS BOG DAM WA016
33 132 32 3 47.579896,-
122.017182 King
WETZEL FAMILY LLC WA020
15 19 39 3 47.213244,-
122.041401 King
VERDANA POND C WA019
07 11 12 3 47.335,-
122.180556 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (179 NORTH)
WA013
98 26 42 3 47.62593,-
122.146391 King
WILDWOOD POND WA011
64 29 67 3 47.400369,-
122.492826 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DETENTION POND BC-2,
NO.2
WA018
43 12 17 3 47.6959,-
122.031538 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DENTION POND ECC-1B-1
WA018
26 13 15 3 47.682759,-
122.028926 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DETENTION POND ECW 1B1
WA018
32 18 17 3 47.682345,-
122.041503 King
TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT
SOUTH POND
WA007
27 164 8 3 47.420628,-
122.269055 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
99
ALDARRA POND DF-R1 WA018
18 53 18 3 47.587773,-
121.954399 King
CEDAR HILLS REGIONAL
LANDFILL STORMWATER
POND
WA020
60 40 3 3 47.456374,-
122.052682 King
CARNATION WASTE POND
NO. 2
WA013
41 25 38 3 47.667648,-
121.948802 King
WEST CAMPUS DAM NO. 6 WA014
18 18 45 3 47.290947,-
122.325197 King
WEEKS FALLS HYDRO
PROJECT
WA015
84 10 33 3 47.432483,-
121.645884 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (197)
WA004
78 11 36 3 47.63173,-
122.152261 King
MORSE LAKE DAM WA002
56 75000 115 3 47.409604,-
121.725455 King
GREEN RIVER DIVERSION
DAM
WA015
83 10 69 3 47.300919,-
121.840592 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (165)
WA004
79 12 36 3 47.624358,-
122.171261 King
MARTINDALE LAKE DAM WA010
89 10 59 3 47.378439,-
122.311706 King
RAVENSDALE PIT WA003
39 165 47 3 47.347285,-
121.996183 King
JEAN LAKE DAM WA001
92 12 56 3 47.311983,-
122.380264 King
BLACK DIAMOND
AERATED LAGOON
WA015
61 15 38 3 47.303243,-
122.010413 King
LOUTSIS DAM WA001
87 97 49 3 47.721992,-
121.979478 King
WEYERHAEUSER DAM WA001
91 80 49 3 47.297176,-
122.29882 King
KEEVIES LAKE DAM WA004
98 500 59 3 47.314814,-
122.050117 King
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
100
DEJONG DAIRY WASTE
POND NO 1
WA018
66 16 20 3 47.211114,-
122.096129 King
NORTH CLEAR ZONE
DETENTION DAM
WA013
21 33 46 3 47.468754,-
122.314808 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 14 WA004
30 400 108 3 47.196489,-
122.132892 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 15 WA004
31 400 108 3 47.194076,-
122.13531 Pierce
56
56 Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Office. 2019. Inventory of Dams Report.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
101
Regional Risk Profile: Earthquake
Hazard Description
Puget Sound has a high risk of experiencing damaging earthquakes. The most common damaging quake
is deep M6+ event, six of which occurred over the past ~100 years. In comparison, the Seattle Fault has
been active three-four times in the past 3000 years and a subduction zone quake occurs approximately
every 200-600 years, with a 10-20% chance it will rupture in the next 50 years, according to the Pacific
Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). With many potentially active faults in the area, Earthquake
impacts can occur anywhere in King County, with earthquake risk focused near faults and in areas with
less stable soils. Washington has the second-highest earthquake risk in the United States, after
California. According to the USGS, there is a 5% chance of a Seattle Fault and a 10-15% chance of a
Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake striking the region by 2055. This equates to an up to 20% chance
of a major earthquake striking King County with potentially catastrophic damages in the next 35 years.57
Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes. Earthquakes may also be accompanied by
a series of foreshocks, or aftershocks in the weeks to months leading up to and following the
earthquake, which can cause additional damage and injury. 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 as the shaking damages or demolishes buildings and other structures. Disruption of
communications, electrical power supplies and gas, sewer and water lines, and transportation routes
should be expected. Earthquakes may cause, or lead to fires, dam failures, landslides, tsunamis, or
releases of hazardous materials, compounding their disastrous effects. An earthquake on the Cascadia
Subduction represents the largest potential risk to the entire Pacific Northwest. However, local sources
such as faults immediately beneath King County may have a much more intense shaking over a shorter
period of time leading to focused damage on the area. The earthquake hazard presents the greatest
regional potential for damages, casualties, economic, and social impacts.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking and
secondary impacts. Ground shaking, or earthquake intensity, measured by the modified Mercalli scale,
depends on distance from the source of the quake, and the soil type. A shallow earthquake that is
relatively small, but nearer to populated areas with a hypocenter closer to the surface, is potentially more
damaging than a much larger earthquake that is farther away. Even when an earthquake is distant,
unconsolidated soils, such as sands, clays, or gravels, found in many floodplains or river valleys, amplify
shaking, leading to more potential damage.
Secondary impacts of earthquake shaking include things like soil liquefaction and landslides.
Liquefaction is a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or
57 LaForge, Gordon. 2019. Critical but Not Urgent: Seattle Prepares for the Big One. Innovations for Successful
Societies, Princeton University.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
102
behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction
generally occurs in soft sedimentary soils. Landslides, or ground failures, are also a common hazard that
can occur with ground shaking, ranging from singular rocks falling down a hill, to mass movements of
land large enough to dam rivers. Landslides falling into bodies of water, can potentially generate
tsunamis, as occurred in the Tacoma Narrows during the 1949 Puget Sound Earthquake.
Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and on the Seattle Fault are also capable of producing
Tsunamis. Tsunamis are a destructive movement of the ocean involving at least one ‘wave’, and strong
currents. Even a relatively ‘small’ tsunami could be devastating to port and maritime infrastructure
within Puget Sound.58 There is evidence that an earthquake on the Seattle Fault that occurred around
900 AD produced a 16-foot tsunami. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
recreated this tsunami using a model.
Soil type impacts ground Shaking. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to amplification and
liquefaction during earthquakes. . Areas with NEHRP soils classes D, E and F are prone to shaking
amplification, and structures in these areas experience greater damage during earthquake shaking. These
also tend to be more susceptible to liquefaction.
NEHRP Soil Classification System
NEHRP SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION MEAN SHEAR
VELOCITY IN METERS
PER SECOND
A Hard Rock 1500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1500
C Dense Soil / Soft Rock 360-760
D Stiff Soil 180-360
E Soft Clay <180
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive
clays, organic soils, soft clays > 36 meters thick)
58 Seattle Office of Emergency Management. Tsunamis and Seiches. Accessed online on 11/12/19 from
https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/tsunamis-and-seiches.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
103
King County has a long history of documented earthquake activity. The most recent significant activity
was the Nisqually Earthquake – February 28, 2001. This earthquake, with an epicenter 10 miles
northeast of Olympia in Thurston County (over 40 miles from Seattle), resulted in statewide losses
exceeding $2 billion and injured 700 people, many in King County.59 A slide in King County generated
from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake partially blocked the Cedar River – flooding several homes.
The 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake was centered under Anderson Island in south Puget Sound.
The most extensive damage occurred along the Interstate-5 corridor, where river sediments led to
shaking amplification and liquefaction impacts. Some damage was experienced in 300,000 households,
many from settling foundations. Buildings built prior to 1950 located in the south downtown area and
Pioneer Square in Seattle were the most impacted; structural damage to chimneys, walls, foundations
and nonstructural elements accounted for two-thirds of all damage reported.60 Insured losses were
59 EQE International – Seattle Nisqually Washington Earthquake Feb 28, 2001;
http://www.propertyrisk.com/refcentr/seattleeq.pdf
60 Hazard Mitigation Survey Team Report, Nisqually Earthquake, February 28, 2001, DR -1361-WA, Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
104
recorded as $305M with $2B in losses overall. Of those impacted, 21% had earthquake insurance but
did not meet the deductible. 75% of retail businesses in Seattle that were impacted closed for some
period for cleanup or repairs. The average closure was 4.8 days in Pioneer Square. Of those businesses
impacted, 50% were financially threatened with closure. Harbor Island saw 69 businesses impacted for
an average of $30,900.
The Nisqually Earthquake led to a new emphasis in Washington, and King County especially, on the
importance of retrofitting historic, unreinforced masonry buildings that were the most serious casualties
of the event. The loss of historic buildings is not only costly in financial terms but can alter the social
fabric of a community and fundamentally change its feel and sense of place.
Seattle-Tacoma Earthquake – April 196561 At magnitude 6.5, the earthquake killed seven people and
caused $12.5 Million in damage (1965 dollars). Severe shaking was felt in Seattle and as far as Issaquah
and beyond. Most damage was in the Pioneer Square area and waterfront. Older masonry buildings were
most impacted. Damage patterns experienced in 1949 were repeated. Eight schools were closed for
inspections and repairs; two were severely damaged. Areas along the Duwamish River experienced
severe settling. Three water mains failed in Seattle.
Olympia Earthquake – April 194962 The 7.1 magnitude earthquake was centered along the southern
edge of Puget Sound. Eight people were killed and property damage in Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle
amounted to about $25 Million in 1949 dollars. In Seattle, a sixty-inch water main ruptured, a radio
tower collapsed, power lines and gas lines were broken in over 100 places. Three damaged schools
needed to be demolished and one rebuilt.
Scenario Drivers63
The Juan de Fuca plate is moving northeastward with respect to the North American plate at a rate of 3
to 4 centimeters per year. 64 The boundary where these two plates converge, the Cascadia Subduction
Zone, lies approximately 50 miles offshore and extends nearly 700 miles from Northern Vancouver
Island in British Columbia to northern California. The collision of these two tectonic plates produces
three types of earthquakes: Subduction Zone Earthquakes, Deep/Benioff Zone Earthquakes, and
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes. 65
61 Seattle Earthquake History; http://seattle.about.com/od/localgovernment/a/Seattle -Earthquakes.htm
62 Earthquake History of Washington. 5 Aug. 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic al
King County Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – November 2016 Page 86.
Survey. 5 Oct. 2003 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/washington/history.php
63 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003 http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf
64 Understanding plate motions, USGS; http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html.
65 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003 http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
105
Cascadia Subduction
Zone Earthquakes
A subduction zone earthquake would originate from the Cascadia Subduction
zone off the coast of Washington and Oregon. Such earthquakes typically have
minutes of strong ground shaking and are quickly followed by damaging
tsunamis and numerous large aftershocks. The potential exists for large
earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, up to an earthquake measuring
Magnitude 9 or greater on the Richter scale. This would produce a tsunami all
along the fault line from British Columbia to Mendocino, California. Such an
earthquake would last several minutes and produce catastrophic damage locally
from the earthquake and distantly from the generated tsunami.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
106
Benioff Zone (Deep)
Earthquakes (e.g.
Nisqually Earthquake)
Deep, or Benioff Zone earthquakes are the most frequent damaging earthquakes
occurring within the Puget Sound area. They occur within the Juan De Fuca
plate as it sinks into the mantle. These earthquakes occur, 16 to 60 miles in
depth. Due to their depth, aftershocks are typically not felt in association with
these earthquakes. These earthquakes are caused by mineral changes as the plate
moves deeper into the mantle. Minerals that make up the plates are altered to
denser, more stable forms as temperature and pressure increase. This
compression results in a decrease in the size of the plate, and stresses build up
that pull the plate apart. Deep earthquakes generally last 20 to 30 seconds and
have the potential of reaching 7.5 on the Richter scale. The last major one in the
Puget Sound region was the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake on February
28, 2001.
Shallow (Crustal)
Earthquakes (e.g.
Seattle Fault
Earthquake)
Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the North America plate at depths of
18 miles or fewer. Shallow earthquakes within the North America plate account
for most of the earthquakes in the Puget Sound region, though most are small
and not felt. The potential exists for major shallow earthquakes as well.
Generally, these earthquakes are expected to have magnitudes less than 8 and last
from 20 to 60 seconds. Of the three types of earthquake, the timelines and
recurrence intervals of crustal events are the least understood. Ongoing research
suggests that Magnitude 7 or greater events have occurred on at least eight faults
in the Puget Sound basin. FEMA estimates using HAZUS show that events on
these faults have the potential to cause greater loss of life and property in King
County than any other disaster likely to affect the area. Evidence of a fault
running east-west through south Seattle (the Seattle Fault) suggests that a major
earthquake with a magnitude of 7 or greater affected the Seattle area about 1,100
years ago.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Unreinforced buildings,
especially those built
during pre or low-code
eras (pre 1973)
Brick and masonry buildings that characterize areas like Pioneer Square in
Seattle are extremely susceptible to even minor earthquakes. Unreinforced
masonry buildings are likely to collapse or partially collapse and be a leading
source of fatalities due to falling debris.
Structures, including roads
and bridges, structures,
built on vulnerable soils.
Structures on vulnerable or less stable soils are more likely to buckle or
collapse. High risk areas cover the region, but are especially common in
historic river valleys where sediment has been deposited over time.
Public facilities built to
“life safety” codes that
Public facilities, such as city halls, schools, etc. are not required to be built to
“immediate occupancy” standards. A major earthquake would render many
of these facilities inoperable, leading to difficulties in organizing the recovery
in affected jurisdictions.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
107
will be unusable after a
major earthquake
Structures and
populations on or near
steep slopes
Steep slopes greater than 40% grade are likely to fail in an earthquake. This
likelihood increases when the ground is saturated. Buildings on or below
these slopes will be damaged or destroyed in these events.
Dams, especially older,
less regulated dams
Dams are responsible for most of the region’s electricity and are extremely
important to any future recovery. A major event may damage these dams
and require repair before they can resume electricity generation. Total failure
of the major dams is unlikely. In addition to the large dams, however, there
are many lower-priority dams that nevertheless meet the standards of high-
hazard. These dams are scattered throughout King County and may not even
be recognized by the jurisdictions in which they are located. A failure of
some of these dams would likely result in numerous fatalities and the
inundation of property and infrastructure.
Hazardous materials sites,
especially those in aging
warehouses or with
weakened containment
systems
Hazardous materials, or Hazmat, sites dot the region and FEMA has
recognized hazardous materials as a community lifeline due to experiences
dealing with recovery after recent disasters. Hazmat releases are likely to
occur at industrial facilities, on pipelines, and elsewhere around the region.
The cocktail of potential contaminants is likely to threaten the public,
responders, and the environment, and to delay recovery in parts of the
region for years.
Port facilities built on
unstable soils
Ports, are almost always built on fill and other extremely unstable soils.
Major earthquakes will damage and potentially destroy port facilities. Any
seiche or tsunami will also have a greater impact on port facilities than inland
facilities.
Rail systems
Rail systems require tracks to be perfectly aligned and will fail during an
earthquake as the ground shifts and buckles. Landslides may also deposit
material on the tracks. Trains traveling at high speeds during an earthquake
have a significantly greater chance of de-railing, potentially injuring
passengers, or spilling cargo, which may cause additional hazardous material
incidents.
Water and sewer
transmission lines,
especially those built of
cast iron, concrete, or
wood
Water lines throughout the region are currently being replaced by ductile
iron. Nevertheless, most special purpose districts undertaking this work are
decades from completing it. Water systems will likely fail throughout the
region and will be difficult to restore due to limitations in transportation
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
108
capacity. Even systems able to complete conversion to ductile iron will
experience failures, especially in areas of unstable soils.
Populations without the
means to care for
themselves over multiple
weeks, especially those
with Access and
Functional Needs
The response and initial recovery following a catastrophic earthquake will
take weeks. Homebound populations, those requiring medications, the
chronically ill, or others with access and functional needs may need to
sustain themselves for an estimated two weeks in some places.
Populations without
insurance, especially those
without renters insurance
or homeowner insurance
earthquake riders.
According to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, which conducted a
major earthquake insurance study in 2017, residential earthquake coverage in
western Washington is 13.8%. Commercial coverage rates are much higher
than residential, with 43.2% of insurance policies having some sort of
earthquake coverage. A key finding is that, for both residential and
commercial customers, insured properties have a much higher assessed value
than uninsured properties, indicating that it is higher-income people that are,
in general, purchasing earthquake insurance coverage.
Earthquake insurance coverage rates are a good measure of resilience
because insurance is the primary source of disaster recovery funding after an
earthquake. Low levels of insurance coverage have stymied recovery efforts
in major disasters, such as hurricanes, where hazard coverage is not
automatically included in homeowner’s policies.
Populations
communicating in
languages other than
English
Information from responders, notifications, and other information will likely
be communicated predominately in English. Special care will need to be
taken to ensure that non-English speakers have access to relief supplies from
established points of distribution.
Levees, dikes, and other
flood control structures
Flood control structures are usually earthen and built on highly unstable
soils. An earthquake during the winter months when these systems are
running close to capacity could cause major failures and widespread
flooding.
Priority Impact Areas
The severity of an earthquake is different depending on the conditions under which it occurs. Also,
different sectors of the population, economy, or government will have different levels of exposure and
vulnerability that impact their susceptibility to an earthquake. This risk assessment looks at impacts of
various earthquake scenarios to a series of critical sectors. The impact data for physical structures is
generated using the Hazus-MH tool for three different Seattle Fault M7.0 scenarios, a Tacoma Fault M
7.1 scenario, and a Cascadia M9.0 scenario. These scenarios are chosen based on their probability and
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
109
potential impact. This earthquake model also includes information on liquefaction potential of soils and
the age of buildings (as an instrument for building code levels).
This assessment considers impacts to physical and human elements of each of 11 impact areas. For
example, for health systems, the locations of key facilities identified by Public Health Seattle – King
County will be assessed against data on high hazard areas. The impacts to first the health system overall,
including employees and existing patients, will also be examined.
The HAZUS scenarios used in this section were generated by the FEMA RiskMAP team for the 2018
King County Risk Report.66
King County
residents
The entire population of King County is potentially exposed to the direct and indirect
impacts from earthquakes. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors,
including the age and construction type of residence, the soil type homes are
constructed on, the proximity to the fault, etc. Business interruption could keep
people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities
could impact populations where no direct damage was experienced.
Hazus estimates there are over 600,000 people living in 250,000 households on
NEHRP Class D or E soils locally. This represents about 30% of the county
population. The population over 65 and the population are the most vulnerable
because of their concentration in areas with Class D and E soils.
Impacts to the population are not restricted to displacement and sheltering. People
may be injured, lose their jobs, schools may be closed from their own damages,
government services may be interrupted, health facilities and care may also be
interrupted or be completely unavailable. Family members may be separated,
including children, institutionalized elderly and the infirm, may be moved to alternate
facilities – and unaccounted for. Deaths of homeless and unidentified people may
require burial before family can claim their remains.
Following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake, the total city population took over 10
years to recover. The population count of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina
still has not recovered to pre-storm levels. King County’s population is extremely
mobile and many are relatively recent arrivals, drawn by the booming economy. A
large earthquake may reverse this growth trend as people lose jobs, face housing
recovery costs without insurance, and seek less hazard-prone areas after the trauma of
a large earthquake.
66 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018. King County Risk Report.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gispublic/AppResources/SEA/RiskMAP/King/KingCounty_RiskReport.pdf
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
110
Vulnerable
populations
Vulnerable populations are more likely to suffer losses during an earthquake and are
likely to take longer to recover after. Factors influencing likelihood of damage include
living in higher hazard areas, living in older buildings, being less likely to have
emergency supplies, and having a higher rate of persons with disabilities. Slower
recovery is exacerbated by poorer populations likelihood of not having access to
institutions leading recovery, not having insurance, not having a stable job, wealth, or
savings, being more likely to be renters who are ineligible for many federal recovery
programs, and having a lower-level of education on average, making it more difficult
to find a new job and to navigate the complex post-disaster system.
In many catastrophic disasters, most notably Hurricane Katrina, poor communities
may never recover.
Property Lack of damage to structures built since the 1949 and 1965 earthquakes have
demonstrated the value of building standards that resist earthquake damages.
Overwhelmingly, damages in the Nisqually Earthquake of 2001 were to unreinforced
masonry and buildings built before the 1949 earthquake. This held equally true for
damages to roads and bridges. The FEMA project team completed an analysis to
identify how many buildings were built to specific building codes. In the table below,
“pre-code” refers to buildings built before 1950, low-code is 1951-1974, moderate is
1975-2003, and high is after 2003.
Countywide, nearly 50% of buildings were built to pre or low code standards. This
level of vulnerability is significant, especially for more intense earthquakes, such as the
Seattle Fault M7.2.
The economy King County alone contributes around 50% of Washington’s gross domestic product.
The county has a diverse economy, which has made it especially resilient to other
forms of disruption but is heavily dependent on a high degree of global
interconnectedness. Losses to lifeline infrastructure, especially port facilities,
communications hubs, and major highway corridors would be crippling if the loss was
total and links could not be quickly restored. Some of western Washington’s key
industries, such as Amazon and Microsoft, may be insulated somewhat from damage
due to the highly global nature of their work and redundancy in their systems, while
others such as Boeing would be severely impacted as rail and highway routes
necessary for the transport of materials is restored. I-5, for example, suffers from
limited redundancy and carries over 233,000 vehicles through Seattle, a number that
has been steadily growing.
Economic risk from a major earthquake is multi-faceted. Economic impacts from an
earthquake include immediate loss of facilities and inventories, ongoing loss of
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
111
employees and customers, and loss of businesses. Ongoing impacts will depend on
the speed of infrastructure restoration, levels of insurance coverage, international
economic conditions, and the ability of jurisdictions to develop and implement a long-
term recovery strategy.
The
environment
Impacts to the environment from an earthquake include the creation and disposal of
large quantities of debris, releases of hazardous materials, the disruption of
environmental conservation programs, and the relaxing of environmental programs
during the cleanup and recovery. The greatest potential for environmental damage is
from hazardous materials releases as fuel and waste pipelines rupture, underground
fuel storage tanks fail, trains, including oil trains, may derail, port facilities are
damaged by any tsunami or seiche, and other chemicals, including household items,
are spilled. The multi-source nature of materials releases, the scale of potential
releases, and the lack of resources for cleanup all complicate the scenario.
While most common after rain and wind event hazards (approximately 75% of all
disaster-triggered releases), hazmat releases after earthquakes are responsible for large
releases over a wide area.67 Earthquake-triggered hazmat releases have included
hundreds of gas line ruptures and pipeline breaks, and releases of ammonia, chlorine,
and sulfuric acid during the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes.68
67 Sengul et al, 2012. Analysis of Hazardous Materials Releases Due to Natural Hazards in the United States.
68 Young, Stacy; Balluz, Lina; and Malilay, Josephine, Natural and Technologic Hazardous Material Releases During and After
Natural Disasters: A Review (2004). Public Health Resources. 90.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
112
Health systems Health system impacts from a
major disaster include
disruptions to emergency
services, community health
clinics, pharmacies, and
hospitals. While new hospitals
are required to meet criteria for
seismic resilience and may
engage in supply-chain and
patient evacuation planning,
much of the rest of the network
is likely to be shut down after a
disaster. This is an especially
high threat to populations
needing regular medical services,
such as kidney dialysis and
insulin injections (which require
refrigeration). In Hurricane
Maria in 2017, Puerto Rico was
left without power for months
and the majority of fatalities
recorded due to the storm were from the elevated death rate among medically-fragile
populations.
In order to function, hospitals require significant infrastructure inputs, including
power and water that are likely to be disrupted after an earthquake. Backup services
are available; however, may be insufficient to meet the need if infrastructure recovery
takes too long.
Health system impacts therefore include large-scale disruptions to supply chains,
disruptions to ongoing care regimens for certain medically-vulnerable populations,
disruption of community care networks of pharmacies and local clinics, loss of trained
staff, and potential damage to hospitals or loss of hospital functionality due to
infrastructure damage.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
113
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Any damaging earthquake has the potential to impact delivery of essential government
services in the days, weeks, months, and even years following the earthquake. The
damages to infrastructure and residential or business locations may curtail or even
prevent government employees from reaching their work locations or may prevent
services from reaching populations in need scattered around the county. Even after
initial short term repairs have been made, the impact on the taxable value of
properties in the county may cause a revenue shortfall that reduces available services
from budgetary impacts.
Collection of available tax
revenue, the revaluation
process (including
documentation), and appeals
process might produce a
further burden on already
stretched government
obligations.
Earthquakes have the
possibility of damaging any
fixed facility at which
services are provided. This
may include: adult and
juvenile detention facilities,
waste water treatment
facilities, solid waste disposal
systems and facilities, the
court system, health and
medical institutions and
clinics, fire and police
stations or equipment,
public transportation, schools, and libraries.
Responders First responders experience personal and professional impacts from an earthquake.
Since responders are also local residents, they will be personally impacted by the
disaster. Professionally, emergency services will be called upon to help with life safety
operations while also seeking to restore day-to-day services.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
114
Infrastructure
systems
Energy: Dams are the primary source of electricity generation for the region and may
be impacted by a major earthquake, even if failure is relatively unlikely. Pipelines cross
the region carrying fuel and are susceptible to earthquakes. Since Washington is home
to the Northwest’s only refineries, damage to this conveyance system will have far
reaching, regional consequences. A major concern for maintaining power in facilities
while the power grid is down after an earthquake is fuel distribution. With
transportation networks seriously impacted, it will be difficult to ensure a supply of
fuel is distributed to hospitals, public facilities, and communications centers. Without
this fuel, systems are likely to fail after a few days of operation.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
115
Water/Wastewater: Water and
wastewater systems are among
the most vulnerable to an
earthquake of all lifeline
infrastructure. Pipelines,
especially those over NEHRP
class D, E, and F soils, are
vulnerable to rupture. King
County maintains a wastewater
treatment system that is
connected to dozens of smaller
systems and operates multiple
water treatment plants. There
are also many separate water
systems that operate their own
conveyance systems and
reservoirs.
Transportation: Transportation lifelines are
both state and local responsibility.
According to a Regional Resiliency
Assessment Program (RRAP) report
published by DHS,
WSDOT has operated a seismic retrofit
program since 1991 and has been steadily
retrofitting bridges through a three-stage
process of stabilizing the bridge
superstructure, strengthening single-
column bridge supports, and reinforcing
multi-column piers. In response to the
2012 Resilient Washington State report,
WSDOT began a program to completely
retrofit three identified lifeline routes for a
total cost in excess of $1B (2015 dollars).
As of 2019, there are 17 state-responsibility
bridges in King County that are in poor condition.
Bridge Seismic Lifeline Routes (green) (WSDOT, 2015)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
116
King County has 177 bridges in its bridge program. At least every two years, those
bridges are inspected and recommendations are made for their repair or replacement.
Between 2006 and 2016, 32 bridges were replaced and many more repaired. In 2008,
the bridge program concluded a 14-year seismic retrofit, improving 115 bridges for
$22 million. This retrofitting has substantially improved the survivability (likelihood of
collapse) of bridges in the King County inventory.
One category of bridges is fracture critical truss bridges. The average age of these
bridges in unincorporated King County is 42 years. Of the 11 bridges in this group,
the Miller River Bridge was closed from damages in the January 2011 flood event and
the Alvord “T” was closed June 2013. The Stossel Bridge is the lowest rated of those
remaining in the inventory. Each carries thousands of vehicles daily.
Bridges, however, are only part of the transportation puzzle. Bridge approaches, and
pavement crossing unstable soils, are major threats. The WSDOT Seismic Lifeline
route discussed above is only considering bridges, not pavement or approaches.
Railways are another highly-vulnerable piece of transportation infrastructure. Tracks
can become misaligned and require repair before train travel is possible. Even in the
relatively small 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, rail travel was disrupted for several days.
Port facilities are seriously threatened by a major earthquake due to liquefaction
potential of port areas and tsunami threats. It is likely a major earthquake would
completely destroy port facilities, requiring years of investment to completely recover.
As with the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake, port operations may never again reach pre-
disaster levels.
Airports are also vulnerable to earthquakes. In the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, the air
traffic control tower at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was damaged, drastically
reducing takeoff and landing capacity. Runway damage is also common as the ground
shifts and would require repair before large jets could land. While the region has a
number of airports, many of them will also be critical facilities for disaster response,
medical patient evacuation, and food and fuel deliveries.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
117
Communications: While the public sector maintains critical radio communications
networks, the networks on which most residents depend is privately owned. While
cell towers are equipped with backup generators, these generators may only have
enough fuel for a few days of continuous operation.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance and
capabilities
Disasters of the magnitude we can expect from a damaging earthquake have the
potential to shake public confidence in government’s ability to maintain law and
order, provide essential services, repair or replace needed infrastructure for
employment, processing of building permits and inspections, clearing of debris and
other needs. Restoration efforts may well take longer than the public is willing to
accept. Amendments to zoning and building standards may not be embraced by those
seeking to rebuild. If rapid restoration is not possible, the area may lose employers
and the population may relocate to other areas of the country in search of
employment.
Earthquake hazards specifically have been the subject of significant reporting in
recent years. Articles in the Seattle Times, the New Yorker, and on local television
have argued that the Pacific Northwest is unprepared for the level of destruction
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
118
expected following a Cascadia Subduction Zone 9.0 event.69 These articles have led to
both stepped-up state and local action on earthquake preparedness and to more
public awareness.
69 Schulz, Kathryn, “The Really Big One,” The New Yorker (July 20, 2015).
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
119
Re gional Risk Profile: Flood
Hazard Description
Flooding is King County’s most persistent and recurrent natural hazard. Flooding affects tens of
thousands of families and properties owners in communities across the county, with life safety,
economic, and workplace impacts on tens of thousands more. The communities within King County
take flooding seriously; the King County Flood Control District was established in 2007 to regionally
manage flood hazards and reduce risk, in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources and
Parks’ River and Floodplain Management Section. The King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
drives much of the work that both the District and King County do to reduce flood risk and manage
flood-related hazards.
Flooding is the inundation of normally dry areas by overflowing rivers, increased coastal waves, or other
accumulation of surface waters. A number of conditions can cause flooding from too much rainfall in a
river’s watershed to sustained offshore wind driving a high tide inland, but flooding can also be caused
by events such as liquefaction of levees during an earthquake that release water the levees hold back.
Other causes of flooding include dam failure, landscape changes after wildfires that exacerbate flooding,
rapid snowmelt, channel migration, and debris in streams causing water to backup.
Typically, King County sees
at least minor flooding ever
year in the fall and winter
and big events are often
driven by atmospheric river
where moisture is picked up
from the Pacific Ocean and
brought by the jet stream to
drop as prolonged heavy
precipitation in western
Washington.
A variety of factors affect
how flooding occurs and its
severity. One main factor for
riverine flooding is the
“hydrology,” which includes
how much rain falls, how fast it falls, how fast it reaches the stream, and the amount of water already in
the stream. The second main factor for riverine flooding is the “hydraulics” of the watershed, which
includes characteristics like the topography, stream channel dynamics, and the overall slope of areas of
the watershed.
Figure 2. Flooding along the Snoqualmie River in 2015
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
120
Flooding is a natural phenomenon and many ecosystems thrive because of the natural floodplain
functions that rivers and coastlines provide. Flooding is considered a “problem” when humans
construct buildings and infrastructure in the path of floodwater. The many aspects of natural floodplain
functions help reduce impacts, slow floodwaters down, and preserve important habitat for endangered
species.
Figure 3. Map showing mapped 1% annual chance floodplains and floodways. Note that Lake Washington does not have
an identified floodplain because its levels are controlled by the US Army Corps of Engineers operated Chittenden Locks.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Flooding, no matter the source, causes widespread and long-lasting damage. The force of moving
floodwaters can tear homes from their foundations, sweep cars off the road, and destroy public
infrastructure. Houses and businesses damaged by flooding can take many months to repair and are
often unsuitable to live in during the repairs. Certain types of flooding can leave buildings inundated for
several days, which can further worsen property damage. Flood-damaged buildings can pose health risks
including mold, contaminated food and drinking water, and mental health stresses from the traumatic
experience.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
121
The velocity, depth, and amount of floodwaters impact how dangerous riverine flooding can be. A
floodplain where the velocity is more than 3 feet per second and the depth is more than 3 feet is an area
dangerous for people to be living or working since those flood conditions can be fatal to someone
walking through floodwaters. King County code, for example, prohibits buildings in unincorporated
areas to be built in fast-flowing and deep floodplains. Rivers in King County also carry substantial
debris, from fallen trees to boulders and sediment, and debris impacts can add to the severity of
flooding.
Rivers are dynamic systems and can
shift significantly during high flow
events or gradually through erosion of
streambanks. This risk is called
“channel migration hazards,” and is a
prevalent feature in northwest river
systems. The scale of channel
migration depends on the severity of
the high flow event, geology of the
banks and streambed, and
characteristics of the surrounding
land. King County regularly maps
channel migration zones and has
applicable development standards for
proposals within these zones.
In coastal floodplains, wave action is the most dangerous aspect of flooding. Buildings are required to
be specially designed to withstand powerful wave actions and can only be built on open foundation
systems, like piers or posts.
King County covers six large drainage basins and costal flood hazard areas.
1. The South Fork Skykomish River basin lies primarily in the northeast portion of King County
and flows into neighboring Snohomish County. The basin drains 234 square miles of
mountainous terrain within King County and includes major tributaries such as the Foss, Tye,
Miller, and Beckler Rivers. The cities of Skykomish, Baring, and Gold Bar as well as many
unincorporated area neighborhoods are located near or on the banks of the rivers and
frequently experience impacts from flooding. The basin features steep slopes in the upper
portion, so significant runoff can cause major flooding relatively quickly. The rivers in the basin
are also very prone to channel migration and it is a significant hazard that communities are
focused on.
2. The Snoqualmie River basin drains much of the northeast and north-central part of King
County and is typically divided into two areas: the Upper Snoqualmie and the Lower
Snoqualmie, above and below Snoqualmie Falls, respectively. The basin also encompasses
tributaries such as the Tolt River, the Raging River, Tokul Creek, Griffin Creek, Harris Creek,
Patterson Creek, among others. The Upper Snoqualmie River and some of the major tributaries
are characterized by steep gradient headwater systems and some lower gradient floodplains near
the incorporated communities of North Bend and Snoqualmie. The Lower Snoqualmie River
Figure 4. House destroyed due to channel migration along the Raging River.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
122
features wide floodplains along the low gradient channel. The cities of Carnation and Duvall
and the unincorporated community of Fall City all lie within the broad Lower Snoqualmie
Valley.
3. The Sammamish River basin originates at Lake Sammamish and drains a 240 square mile
watershed, including the tributaries of Bear, Little Bear, North, and Swamp Creek basins. The
river has been channelized since the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and is
partially regulated by a weird outlet downstream of the mouth of the lake, which reduces
frequency and severity of flooding.
4. The Cedar River basin stretches from the Cascade Mountains to Lake Washington, where the
Cedar River terminates. The basin has been heavily altered from its natural condition, with
major projects constructed including Masonry Dam and the Landsburg Diversion, both to serve
as water supply infrastructure. Along the Cedar River are many unincorporated community
neighborhoods as well as cities like Maple Valley and Renton. Naturally-occurring large wood is
a prevalent hazard in the basin.
5. The Green River originates in the Cascade Mountains at an elevation of 4,500 feet and flows
through many cities including Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and Seattle. The basin is divided
into four major sub-basins: the upper watershed above the Howard Hanson Dam, the middle
Green below the dam and upstream of Auburn, the lower Green that flows through the
incorporated cities, and the Duwamish estuary. The Green River basin features many large
structural elements including Howard Hanson Dam, which provides flood control, and large
levee and revetment systems on the lower Green River.
6. The White River originates in glaciers on the northeast face of Mount Rainier. The White River
drains an area of about 490 square miles, approximately one third of which lies within King
County. Major tributaries join the White River along its path like the Greenwater River and
Boise Creek. Over one hundred years ago, the White River was diverted to flow into the
Puyallup River in Pierce County. Mud Mountain Dam is a major flood control dam that has a
significant effect on reducing flooding in the basin. Additionally, water is diverted from the river
for hydropower generation near Lake Tapps. Along the river are a number of small
unincorporated neighborhoods in addition to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Reservation and
portions of the city of Auburn.
7. Coastal flood hazard areas pose potential risks to approximately 100 miles of shoreline, about
half of which is on Vashon Island in unincorporated King County and the other half is the
incorporated shoreline through the cities of Shoreline, Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, and Federal
Way. Storm surge and wave action are significant flood hazards facing development along
shorelines. Coastal erosion also is a prevalent hazard, including along the steep bluff areas
around the shoreline in King County. Many miles of shoreline are variably armored by
bulkheads and other structures. Coastal flooding will be exacerbated by sea level rise and other
impacts of climate change.
Flooding is a prevalent threat during the fall and winter months due to atmospheric rivers, heavy rain,
and king tides. Major floods occur on average every two to five years. Major river flooding has typically
not caused fatalities, but rather significant property damage. Flooding along multiple rivers in 2006 and
2009 were the most recent major floods to cause many millions of dollars in damage. Flooding in 1990
is considered the largest flood of record for most of the county except for the Lower Snoqualmie and
Tolt Rivers. There have been 28 flooding events since 1965 that have resulted in federal disaster
declarations. At least minor flooding occurs every winter. Climate change is likely to have a significant
effect in changing the patterns of flooding in the river basins.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
123
Scenario Drivers
Most types of flooding caused by extreme weather are cyclical and are measured by their probability of
occurrence in a given year based on the factors that drive flooding. The larger a flood event, the less
likely it is to happen in a year. A flood with a 10% chance of occurring in a year is sometimes called a
“10-year flood,” and that flood event will have less river flow and likely fewer impacts than a 1% annual
chance flood event, or a “100-year flood.” These flood events can be modeled and maps created to
show their extents.
The 1% annual chance flood, or 100-year flood, is the most important scenario because floodplain
regulations and federal flood insurance are based on this flood event. This flood event represents the
mapped floodplain on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and forms the basis for community
regulations for participating communities in the National Flood Insurance Program. In King County
communities, all new or substantially improved buildings must be constructed with their lowest floor at
least one foot higher than the expected elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
While the 1% annual chance flood is scenario most often discussed, the 10%, 2%, and 0.2% annual
chance floods are often used for planning and certain regulatory purposes. The extents of the flood
events are not consistently mapped throughout the county, but engineering data in flood models can be
used in project planning or regulatory compliance.
Typically the recurrence interval floods are driven by cyclical natural factors like atmospheric rivers
bringing heavy rain or severe winter storms and king tides. Other factors can drive flooding scenarios in
different ways. For example, levee or dam failures may happen due to problems caused by inadequate
maintenance. Flooding damage from earthquakes will likely only be seen if an earthquake damages a
levee, for example, during times of high water.
King County has a long-established Flood Warning Program that has been monitoring river systems for
over 50 years. The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks’ River and Floodplain
Management Section operates a Flood Warning Center that opens 24 hours a day when flooding occurs
on any of the river systems with gages. For the Flood Warning Program, the rivers are measured by a
“flood phase” system based on real-time flow information. When a river reaches flood phase 2, the
Center opens, coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies, and accepts calls from the public
requesting information about flooding. When a river reaches flood phase 3, patrol teams are sent out to
monitor flood protection facilities and any potential flooding impacts. When a river reaches flood phase
4, additional staff are brought in to the Flood Warning Center, sent on flood patrols, and begin to
collect damage information in case of a disaster declaration.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
124
Heavy rain and
atmospheric rivers
Most riverine and urban flooding is caused by heavy rain and atmospheric
rivers that drive significant weather systems into the Pacific Northwest.
Intense rainfall can overwhelm rivers’ ability to carry flows in their banks
and cause inundation of the adjacent floodplains. These factors not only
drive riverine flooding, but also urban flooding issues that can overwhelm
local stormwater infrastructure and can cause flood damage.
Severe winter storm, storm
surge, king tides
Severe winter storms that have strong winds combined with king tides can
cause significant coastal flooding, as seen in the 1982 king tide event that
battered much of the shoreline in King County. Intense coastal storms and
high tides can cause damage to coastal properties and damage infrastructure
like roads and ferry docks.
Sea level rise
As sea level rises in Puget Sound, the stillwater elevation level, or the water
level without effect of waves, rises and pushes more water inland during
times of severe storms. While the actual increase in flood risk will differ
based on the localized geography and wind patterns, sea level rise is certain
to worsen flooding along the coastlines in King County.
Channel migration Rivers natural erode banks and soils due to the energy of moving water.
This erosion causes rivers to migrate or move laterally across a floodplain.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
125
A channel can also move abruptly over a large distance in a single flood
event. This can threaten development located in channel migration zones,
some of which are mapped.
Dam failure and
overtopping
If dams fail, the water held back will rush out quickly, potentially causing
catastrophic flooding downstream. Dams both large and small can pose
significant impacts. The potential for Howard Hanson Dam’s failure in
2009 brought to light the incredible flooding, loss of life, and property
damage that could happen if dams fail. Smaller structures that might be in a
neighborhood can also lead to deaths and significant property damage.
Dam failure can be caused by too much water for a structure to handle or
by lack of maintenance that causes the dam to fail.
Levee failure and
overtopping
Levees act as flood protection facilities, but only offer protection to a
certain recurrence interval. They also are manmade earthen structures that
require maintenance. Flooding can exceed a levee system’s capacity or flaws
in the structure can cause it to fail, and both would cause rapid inundation
behind the levee. Water can seep through levees and cause weaknesses that
lead to collapse.
Landslide and mudflow
Landslides can rapidly fill in rivers, causing a blockage in the river and
immediate overflowing. This threat is particularly present on the Cedar
River. Landslides can also add significant material to a river, causing a
mudflow and rapid damage to property, similar to the Oso Landslide event
in 2014 in Snohomish County.
Earthquake
Earthen levee systems are prone to liquefaction in an earthquake, which can
cause major failure of the levee structures. If floodwaters are being held
back at the time of an earthquake, the levees can fail and flooding could
occur very quickly.
Volcanic eruption
In the event that Mt. Rainier erupts, lahars can fill river valleys and
drastically change the course of rivers, streams, and shorelines. The amount
of materials brought downstream in a lahar would affect the severity of
impacts in future flooding.
Tsunami
Tsunamis are powerful waves that are caused by an earthquake or
displacement of water from an underwater land feature collapse. Specific
scenarios are outlined in the Tsunami and Seiche Risk Assessment. A
tsunami that affects King County would cause significant wave action and
likely major damage to properties on the coast.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
126
Humanmade watershed
changes
One major factor in understanding flood risk is the underlying land that
floodwaters flow over. Harder and more impervious surfaces carry
floodwater faster, so as humans continue to build buildings, roads,
sidewalks, and other impervious features, floodwaters travel faster to
streams, which can increase the severity of flooding.
Climate change
While climate change has an effect and influence on many of the factors
already identified, it is a specific scenario driver because of the potential to
change flooding in King County. Research is currently ongoing to better
analyze, quantify, and understand the effect of certain emissions scenarios
that could drive flooding in multiple ways. King County is likely to
experience higher intensity rainfall events, which have the potential to cause
more impactful flooding.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Families living in
floodprone areas
Families with limited budgets are the top concern for flooding. Because
flood damage can be very expensive and disruptive, families have a difficult
time recovering from the effects of flooding. Without flood insurance,
families must take money from savings; and even with flood insurance, flood
damaged homes may not be livable for many months. Renters are
particularly vulnerable since they often are lower income and do not have
flood insurance. Additionally, families that don’t speak English as a primary
language can be more vulnerable to flooding because most flood warning
systems are in English and much of the flood insurance, floodplain
regulations, and any mitigation programs are made up of materials in
English.
Major roads and sole-
access roads
The many bridges, major roads, cross-valley roads, and sole-access
neighborhood roads that cross floodplains are a top priority during flooding.
Many people in Duvall, Carnation, and other communities in the Snoqualmie
valley can be entirely cut off during major flooding since SR 203 and the
cross-valley roads are often underwater. During high tide flooding events on
Vashon Island, many coastal roads are underwater as well and can limit
access via Vashon Highway.
Critical facilities
Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, hazardous materials storage facilities, and
other critical facilities operations are threatened during flooding. Schools will
be inaccessible and hospital operations and access routes vulnerable.
Facilities like nursing homes house populations that cannot easily leave
floodprone areas. And hazardous waste, sewage, or animal waste storage
facilities threaten water quality and pose health risks during flooding.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
127
Farms
There are many agricultural operations in King County’s floodplains
including major production areas in the Snoqualmie Valley, Green River
Valley, Sammamish River Valley, and parts of the Enumclaw Plateau.
Flooding can particularly affect harvest time in October and November as
well as making it difficult to start planting in the spring. Farms with livestock
faced significant losses in the 1990 floods, but now many dairy or other
livestock operations have farm pads that offer refuge for animals in times of
flooding.
Linear infrastructure
Linear infrastructure such as water and natural gas pipelines, sewage systems,
and utility transmission lines cross rivers, streams, and floodplains.
Significant water pipelines take water from protected watersheds down to
Seattle, Renton, and other cities and often are threatened by flooding. A
major capital project completed in 2019 added flood protection for the Tolt
Pipeline, which is part of Seattle’s water supply. Additionally, as sea levels
rise and worsen coastal flooding,
Flood protection facilities
Levees and revetments are part of the flood protection facility systems in
King County. During flood events, levees and revetments are tested by the
force of floodwater. Revetments are intended to protect against channel
migration, but if the flood is too large, they can fail and rivers can avulse.
Levees similarly are put under serious pressure during flood events and a
number of issues from seepage to sloughing can undermine levees and cause
them to fail.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Flooding can affect anyone who lives in or near floodplains. Most flood hazards are
mapped and families living in these mapped 1% annual chance floodplains can expect at
least a 26% chance of seeing floodwaters over 30 years, the length of a typical mortgage.
Flooding can threaten lives, particular in areas where flooding can happen quickly and
with little warning, in addition to those driving on flooded roads. Most deaths occur from
people driving through floodwaters and being swept away in their cars.
Flooding also causes significant property damage and, on average, one foot of water in an
average size home can cause over $50,000 in damage. Without flood insurance, this level
of damage can overwhelm a family’s finances. And those without many financial
resources will be severely impacted by flood damage to their home and/or belongings.
Flooding also affects those who work in floodplains or commute through them. Many
farmworkers are employed on farms in the Snoqualmie or Sammamish Valleys and when
flooding inundates or ruins crops, farmworkers can find themselves without jobs.
Businesses in floodplains also will shut down during flooding, particularly if buildings and
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
128
access roads are damaged. After the 1993 Midwest Flooding, FEMA found that over 40%
of small businesses don’t reopen after being flooded.
Vulnerable
populations
Flooding is a complicated hazard to understand and accessing flood warning, flood
insurance, and other information often requires command of English, understanding of
government bureaucracy, and access to financial resources. Populations that don’t speak
English, don’t have access to government resources, and those that cannot afford or
don’t have flood insurance are particularly vulnerable to the long-term impacts of
flooding.
Renters can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of flooding. Families that rent make
up over 50% of the households in the floodplain, whereas they make up approximately
37% of households in the entire County. Renters are more often vulnerable because
they’re far less likely to have a flood insurance policy. Out of the many thousands of
families that rent, there are less than 300 renters flood insurance policies, according to
data from FEMA, and some of those may be business properties that the data cannot
distinguish. Renters often have less wealth or savings to draw from to pay for uninsured
losses.
Property Flooding particularly impacts property and often causes many millions of dollars in
property damage in major flooding events. Even a small amount of water inside a
building can cause significant property damage and leave building owners with large
repair bills. For families, damage to homes may mean difficult financial decisions,
displacement for weeks, and lost belongings. For business owners, flood damage may
mean lost economic output from shutdowns, destroyed inventory, and inability to pay
employees.
Throughout King County, there is at least $5 billion of building value in floodplains.
Federal flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program is the primary
way building owners financially protect their property in floodprone areas. As of June
2019, flood insurance policies cover over $2 billion worth of property throughout King
County. Many larger commercial or industrial facilities are insured through private
contracts, the value of which is not available to government agencies.
Community Repetitive Loss Properties
Auburn 0
Bellevue 3
Burien 6
Carnation 0
Duvall 2
Issaquah 14
Kent 2
King County 108
Kirkland 1
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
129
Mercer
Island 1
North Bend 4
Redmond 0
Renton 0
Skykomish 4
Snoqualmie 134
Woodinville 2
Most of these structures are residential. King County attempted to assess the use type of
these properties; however, none of the available data sources on RL/SRL properties from
the CRS or FEMA contained use types. Even the property-specific forms required to
evaluate under CRS did not include use.
The economy In 2007, an economic study was conducted to understanding the economic impact of
flooding. The study found that 6% of the region’s jobs are located in the floodplain and
nearly 7% of the county’s wages and salaries are generated in the floodplain ($3.7 billion).
20% of the county’s manufacturing employment and 30% of the county’s aerospace
employment are found in floodplains. A major flood that would shut-down economic
activity in floodplains would result in at least $46 million per day in lost economic output.
Flooding will affect certain industries like agriculture, aerospace, manufacturing, and
distribution more heavily because of their presence and reliance on floodplain locations.
In the lower Snoqualmie valley, there are nearly 200 farms that produce a wide range of
products from dairy to herbs and row crop vegetables. The Sammamish River valley
supports a number of wineries and other small farms. And the Green River valley hosts
many large fields of row crops as well as a large County-owned farm leased out by a
diverse group of farmers. Flooding can negatively impact these operations, particularly if
it occurs before harvest or late into the spring planting season. Farmers cannot sell food
products from flood-damaged fields. Flooding, however, also provides nutrients to the
soil that supports productive agriculture.
While some agricultural sectors are dependent on natural floodplain functions, other
economic sectors have located in the floodplain over decades for other reasons. Large
warehouses in the Green River valley, many in the floodplain, make the region one of the
largest logistics hubs in the nation. But, the square footage of warehouse and aerospace
facilities means that billions of dollars are at risk of flooding every year as well as
thousands of jobs.
The
environment
Flooding is a natural process and supports unique ecosystems and habitats. Many riparian
and aquatic ecosystems depend upon some amount of regular flooding or high water
events. Various salmonid species use high water events to seek refuge as juveniles or
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
130
access more favorable habitats, which makes flooding an important part of recovery for
the endangered salmon species in Puget Sound.
Natural floodplain functions typically result in slower-moving floodwaters with less
intense flood height peaks. When upland forest areas are logged or burned, rain and
snowmelt reach streams faster, which can cause flooding to be more intense and push
water through the floodplain more quickly.
King County often incorporates natural functions into the design of projects, which helps
reduce flood risk as well as protect and restore ecosystems. Reconnecting rivers and
coastlines to their historic floodplains through levee setbacks, creating side channels, and
removing obstructions help restore natural functions and bring flood risk reduction
benefits as well. The large Countyline project near Auburn restored 121 acres of
floodplain along the White River and reduce flood risk for over 200 residential properties.
Health
systems
Of the 127 medical facilities throughout King County, only 5 are located in the 0.2%
annual chance floodplain (which includes the 1% annual chance floodplain) and of those,
only 1 is located in the 1% annual chance floodplain. No hospitals are located in the 0.2%
annual chance floodplain. While these 5 facilities are certainly at risk, the risk from
flooding to the overall healthcare and medical system is low.
One area of concern is the ability of residents in certain areas of the County, in particular
sole-access neighborhoods and the lower Snoqualmie Valley, to evacuate for medical
reasons during times of flooding. Neighborhoods with roads that are inaccessible during
flooding are particularly vulnerable. The lower Snoqualmie Valley can also be isolated
when the river reaches beyond a flood phase 4 level.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Because few government facilities are located in floodprone areas, flooding does not pose
a substantial risk to the continuity of government operations. Certain city buildings in
Snoqualmie, North Bend, and Carnation are in floodprone areas, but some are elevated
and others are outside floodprone areas.
Responders Police, firefighters, and paramedics play key roles in the response to flooding. Police
officers often help shut roads down to prevent people from driving through floodwaters;
firefighters often rescue people trapped by flooding; and paramedics transport people
hurt by flooding, often from hypothermia or other causes. If any of these first
responders’ buildings are in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, their ability to respond is
seriously threatened.
Of the 64 police stations in King County, 3 are located in the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain (in Skykomish, Redmond, and Issaquah).
Of the 161 fire stations in King County, 6 are located in the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain (in Skykomish, Seattle, North Bend, Renton, Issaquah, and near Enumclaw).
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
131
Additionally, neighborhoods with roads that are inaccessible during flooding pose
challenges to first responders. They may not be able to drive to homes and may require
helicopters or boats to access.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy systems: most overhead powerlines are not susceptible to impacts from
flooding unless the power poles are not resistant to flooding. Buried cables
typically aren’t affected by flooding very often.
• Water/Wastewater: flooding, particularly from king tides and coastal storm
systems can damage wastewater infrastructure such as the County’s West Point
Treatment Plant. Some city wastewater treatment plants are also located in
floodprone riverine areas. Where these linear systems cross rivers, flooding can
pose issues. The Tolt Pipeline, a water supply line for Seattle, was at risk from the
Snoqualmie River migrating further toward its alignment. In 2019, a project was
completed to provide some protection from that risk.
• Transportation: roads through the Snoqualmie Valley are particularly susceptible
to flooding and close regularly during high water events. Valley residents are
often isolated. King County Road Services Division closes roads and will be
working on an effort to study the impacts of flooding on various county roads.
• Communications: most communications infrastructure is not vulnerable to
flooding.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Flooding occurs frequently enough in King County that residents often turn to the King
County River & Floodplain Management Section for help and information during
flooding events. Confidence is high in the government’s ability to respond to flooding
events. The multiple iterations of the Flood Hazard Management Plan have featured
robust stakeholder involvement processes, which has inspired confidence in King
County’s ability to manage floodplains with higher regulatory standards and other
programs to keep people and property safe from flooding.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
132
Regional Risk Profile: Hazardous Materials
Hazard Description
Hazardous materials releases are one of the most common incident types. They can occur due to an
accident or also be secondary to other primary hazards like: terrorist attack, earthquake and volcanic
activity, severe flooding, and fires. Hazardous materials releases occur from leaking containers or
pipelines when corrosion or a puncture occurs, accidental overflow of vessels when being transferred,
loading dock and warehouse accidents, careless handling, illegal activities like drug labs, and traffic
accidents. The person who dumps paint down a sewer is releasing a hazardous material. The illegal drug
lab is using hazardous materials and leaving hazardous waste. The car accident that leaves a pool of fuel,
oil, and anti-freeze has left hazardous materials to clean up. A growing source of materials releases is
from electronic waste dumping, releasing chemicals like lead, zinc, nickel, flame retardants, barium, and
chromium into the environment.
There are nine classes of hazardous materials.
1. Explosives
2. Gases
3. Flammable Liquid and Combustible Liquid
4. Flammable Solid, Spontaneously Combustible, and Dangerous When Wet
5. Oxidizer and Organic Peroxide
6. Poison (Toxic) and Poison Inhalation Hazard
7. Radioactive
8. Corrosive
9. Miscellaneous
Examples of common hazardous materials include anhydrous ammonia (used as a refrigerant), gasoline
and diesel (used as transportation fuels), paints and dyes (for homes and clothing), and many corrosives
(used in the local aircraft manufacturing industry).70 Pipelines and rail lines transport crude oil to
refineries and finished fuels to homes (natural gas) and retail fueling stations for vehicles.
The risk of a CBRNe event (an attack using chemical, biological, radiological, or nerve agent) is low, if
one were to occur this would have widespread impacts. There is little known day-to-day risk of an event,
though this is a major focus of federal, state, and local counterterrorism planners. More information on
hazardous materials in terrorist events will be provided in the terrorism hazard profile.
Although the likelihood of large numbers of fatalities from a single materials release is low, the effects
can be devastating to impacted communities, the economy and the environment. A major oil spill in
Puget Sound would destroy the fishery, including $4.5 billion in commercial fishing, plus tourism, and
sport fishing. The Puget Sound is also a culturally-sacred and environmentally-critical resource that
70 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Nine Classes of Hazardous Materials. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Nine_Classes_of_Hazardous_Materials-4-
2013_508CLN.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
133
cannot be replaced or valued in dollars. In this way, the hazardous materials incident hazard is one of
the most complex. It includes frequent spills and releases from day to day human activities, a threat of a
major release from a massive spill or accident, and the threat of an intentional release from an attack.
The impacts from hazardous materials are also complex, including slow-acting releases that kill people
and the environment over years and
catastrophes that kill thousands, such as in
Bhopal, India in 1984.
Between July 1, 2015 and March 31 2019
Washington State Department of Ecology
received 748 reports of oil spills of one
gallon or more reaching a water source,
including both running into storm drains
and running directly into a waterway. This
only includes reported spills and only
includes oil spills. This does not include the
uncountable quantity of micro-spills that
occur and are later washed into waterways
by rain. For example, the rough spot of
pavement in a parking lot that is the result
of fluids dripping onto the pavement from parked vehicles is
an oil spill.71
In Washington, the state Department of Ecology is the lead agency for hazardous materials. Local
response is led by fire services.
71 Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Atlas. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html.
Class 1, 3, and 4 Spills Program-Regulated Facilities (WA
ECY)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
134
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County hosts a variety of unique transportation and
geographic conditions, including one of the largest deep
water seaports on the west coast, an International Airport in
SeaTac that handles cargo from all over the world, as well as
fuel pipelines running south from Whatcom County through
King County and down into Portland carrying jet fuels,
diesel, gasoline, etc. An estimated 18,833 oil tank cars travel
through King County each quarter.72 Additionally, local
highways like Interstate-5, Interstate-90, Interstate 405, US
Highway 2, State Route (SR) 18, SR 516, SR 167, US
Highway 99 and others transport hazardous materials
throughout the region.
In the City of Seattle alone there are thousands of facilities
with hazardous materials regulated under the fire code.73
Other areas with high concentrations of hazardous materials
usage include Auburn, Redmond and the Kent Valley.
Business types that commonly use hazardous materials include: hospitals, schools and universities, metal
plating and finishing, the aircraft industry, public utilities, cold storage companies, the fuel industries, the
communication industry, chemical distributors, research, and high technology firms. Each of these
facilities is required to maintain plans for warning, notification, evacuation and site security under
various regulations.
While the majority of incidents tend to involve petroleum products, a significant number involve
extremely hazardous materials. Extremely hazardous materials include chemicals like chlorine, ammonia,
sulfuric acid, nitric acid, some pesticides (EHS is a technical designation, so not pesticides- although the
chemistries used as pesticides might be on the EHS list), and other chemicals that can cause immediate
death or injury when inhaled, ingested, or come in contact with skin. Approximately 200 local facilities
with extremely hazardous materials report to the county under Community Right to Know Act
provisions. (plug with time and description of LEPC Seattle and King) These sites report their
inventories annually with records being retained in databases in multiple locations.74
Though they occur every day, many spills are not reported or go undetected. Some industrial spills from
the 1970’s and 1980’s are still being cleaned up in the Kent Valley, Harbor Island, Duwamish corridor,
72 Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Atlas. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html.
73 National Fire Protection Association. Materials Management Codes and Standards. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-
standards?mode=code&code=400.
74 King County Local Emergency Management Planning Committee. 2015. Tier II Reports.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
135
and Seattle/South Park as federal Superfund cleanup sites. There are currently 10 active Superfund
cleanup sites in King County.75 At least five other Superfund sites have completed cleanup and have
been closed since the program began. Currently active sites include:
1. Harbor Island – groundwater contains benzene, ethyl benzene, xylene, mercury, cadmium, lead
and zinc with poly chlorinated bi-phenols (PCB) sediments. 18
2. Lockheed West Seattle – heavy metal contaminants: arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, silver, and
zinc with butyl tins and PCBs.
3. Lower Duwamish Waterway – River sediments are contaminated with mercury, arsenic, PCBs,
dioxins, furans, and phthalates.
4. Midway Landfill – Ground water contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organics.
5. Pacific Car and Foundry – Soil is contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs and solvents.
Approximately 37,000 obtain drinking water from wells within three miles.
6. Pacific Sound Resources – Soil and ground water contaminated by PCBs and heavy metals from
former wood treatment operations.
7. Queen City Farms – the site is a former landfill. Ground water, surface water, and sludge
contaminated by volatile organic compounds. Soil contaminated with PCBs and metals.
8. Quendall Terminals – Soil and ground water contaminated with benzene and creosote from
former manufacturing plant. Contaminants release to Lake Washington.
9. Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands) – Landfill contains volatile organic compounds like
toluene, xylene, vinyl chloride, and others – plus heavy metals.
10. Western Processing – former industrial processing facility ground water and sediment contains
volatile organic compounds, PCBs, phenols, and heavy metals
An example of the cleanup costs for a Superfund site is illustrated by the Harbor Island Cleanup. The
former owner, RSR Corporation agreed to pay $8.5 million in fines toward the cleanup that will cost
(when completed) over $32 million.76 The cost to cleanup an illegal drug lab (in a home) can cost
between $5,000 and $100,000 depending on the size of the home. Often the occupants vacate or
abandon the sites – leaving a bank or credit union holding the mortgage and cleanup costs.77
Scenario Drivers
It is difficult to find a home, school, hospital or place of business that isn’t without chemicals, solvents,
pesticides, lawn chemicals, cleaners and/or paints.
Pipeline rupture
Washington State hosts the only oil refineries in the Northwest. Multiple
pipelines traverse the state, such as the Olympic Pipeline. Failures or
shutdowns in the pipeline can cause fuel shortages and price increases. An
explosion on the Olympic Pipeline in 1999 killed three people and cost over
$58 million in property damage.
75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Sites Where You Live. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live
76 U.S. Department of Justice. 2006. Former Harbor Island Smelter Operator to Pay $8.5 Million in Superfund Cleanup
Costs. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/January/06_enrd_047.html.
77 Dewan, Shaila and Robbie Brown. July 25, 2009. When an ex-meth lab is home. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
6/25/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/when-an-ex-meth-lab-is-a-home/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
136
Chemical/oil train
derailment
An oil spill in 2016 in Moser, Oregon along the Columbia River very nearly
caused the destruction of the entire town and an ecological catastrophe in
the river. The community was saved by luck of the weather and because
most of the oil that spilled flowed into a water treatment plan, where it was
safely contained.
Oil tanker spill
An oil tanker spill in the Puget Sound would devastate marine life and
potentially cause a permanent shut-down in oil tanker traffic due to public
outcry. A major spill would close the fishery economy leading to $4.5 billion
in losses for Washington alone and permanent, incalculable damage to tribal
cultural resources.
Storage facility failure in a
populated area
A facility failure, including an explosion or release of chemicals, could
endanger or kill many people. In Waco, Texas in 2013, an ammonium nitrate
explosion occurred at a distribution facility, leveling a neighborhood and
killing 15 people. A train derailment in 2013 in Lac Megantic in Quebec,
Canada killed 60 people and destroyed much of the town.
Vehicle accident on a
major roadway
Vehicle accidents that release fuel and oil occur every day on Washington
roads. A major incident, especially at an interchange, such as the I-5 and I-
405 interchange in Tukwila/Renton would potentially close both freeways
for an extended period while cleanup occurs.
CBRNe Attack
Another lower-risk, but high-intensity hazardous materials event is from a
chemical, biological, radiological, or nerve agent (CBRNe) attack.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Low-income communities
in or around industrial
facilities
Low-income communities are more likely to be impacted from major
releases due to the proximity of affordable housing to industrial areas and
historic environmental injustices.
Individuals with
respiratory issues
Individuals with respiratory issues are more likely to succumb quickly to an
airborne release of a chemical.
Major transportation
facilities such as the Port
of Seattle
Major transportation facilities store huge amounts of chemicals and fuel in
depots. A failure or fire at one of these facilities could damage or destroy
these assets.
Rail facilities Rail facilities transport chemicals and fuels, including highly combustible
crude oil. There have been multiple derailments and spills. In Moser, Oregon
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
137
in 2016, a train derailed causing a fire that nearly destroyed the town and the
fuel was prevented from leaking in large quantities into the Columbia River
by luck.
Interstate highways
Interstate highways are a major artery carrying chemicals. Accidents happen
every day and major chemical spills can shut down a roadway for an
extended period of time. (oil slicks contribute to traffic injuries and fatalities
when it rains)
Oil tankers in Puget
Sound
Oil tankers are expected to traverse Puget Sound in growing numbers due to
Canada’s approval of a major pipeline and terminal in Vancouver, BC. When
this occurs, it will significantly raise the risk a spill that could destroy much
of the aquatic life in Puget Sound.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Potential Impacts to the public from a hazardous materials spill can vary widely.
Temporary or even permanent displacement through evacuation from an unsafe area can
result in relocation/displacement of populations. Employment disruption, school closure,
impacts to private and community wellheads and other impacts can change whole
communities. Long term exposure to toxic chemicals can cause birth defects and
temporary or permanent health problems – especially for the young, old and infirm.78
Vulnerable
populations
Vulnerable populations often live in closer proximity to facilities with the risk of
hazardous materials release. In King County, this includes residences near the Duwamish
industrial area, in Kent, Renton, and south Seattle. These are also the locations of the
superfund sites in the region. In cases of major releases or system failures, the most
impacted populations are frequently lower-income, often ethnic minority communities
that live nearby. Populations with respiratory issues are also at a heightened risk of
impacts due to an airborne release of chemicals.
Property Spills of hazardous materials to soil or buildings can result in extensive and costly cleanup
efforts. Cleanup standards are established by federal (U.S. EPA), state (Washington State
Department of Ecology), and local standards (fire agencies and environmental agencies).
Until a site is cleaned up to those standards, residential or business occupancy can be
denied under the Health Code. The responsible party (property owner) may be required
to pay for the cleanup. Often this can lead to bankruptcy and clean up by state or federal
agencies and contractors. Contaminated property can drastically reduce the value of the
property and the King County subsequent property taxes available to local and state
78 U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Health Effects of Chemical Exposure. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/emes/public/docs/Health%20Effects%20of%20Chemical%20Exposure%20FS.pdf .
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
138
government. Similar impacts can be expected for transportation accidents with hazardous
material spills.
The economy Small spills can close businesses and rather large impact on employment and land use
including the properties of neighbors not responsible for the chemical release. Superfund
sites can impact a community for decades until they are cleaned up. The large salmon and
fishing fleet that calls King County home may be impacted when some of a year’s fish
stock – or even the entire run is impacted.
The
environment
Any chemical spill on or along rails, roads, pipelines, fixed industrial facilities or illegal
drug labs/dumping may impact the natural environment. Wetlands, streams and rivers,
lakes, and reservoirs may all be damaged from chemical spills. In some cases these
damages may injure the plant and animal life irreparably. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish,
and mammals may all be impacted. Air pollutants may impact human inhabitants as well
as the natural environment. Recreational areas can be closed until a suitable solution can
be found to recover the natural environment.
Health
systems
Hospitals can be overwhelmed by major releases of hazardous materials as populations,
both those exposed and those who feel they may have been, check in at emergency
rooms. Hospitals and pharmacies are also sources of hazardous materials, including some
radioactive materials such as those associated with cancer treatment.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
King County is the operator of several facilities that are vulnerable to hazardous materials
spills. The county has three waste water operations (South Plant, West Point Treatment
Plant, and Brightwater). These expensive facilities are vulnerable to the introduction of
chemicals (when in large volumes) to the sanitary sewer system. The county also has solid
waste (garbage) transfer stations and a major landfill operation at Cedar Hills. While
contaminants are avoided, some material may make its way into the landfill and the
ground water table. Drinking water facilities including private and community well heads
and reservoirs may also be vulnerable to introduction of chemical or biological
contaminants. Any chemical spill that impacts a major roadway or rail line may impact
public transit routes in the county.
Responders Hazardous materials make response and recovery activities in all disasters a threat to the
health and safety of responders. During local events, such as house fires, stores of
chemicals can catch fire and explode, injuring responders. During larger events such as
earthquakes, large-scale releases can surprise and overwhelm responders without proper
equipment. It can also be extremely difficult to determine the chemical or chemicals that
have been released from a given spill, adding to first responder danger.
Infrastructure
systems
With hazardous materials being everywhere in our modern community, it is possible to
impact almost any critical facility in the county. Any roadway or rail line is vulnerable to
the many chemicals transported over them daily. Spills to soils and surface water sources
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
139
can impact drinking water and the environment. Materials dumped into sanitary sewers
can contaminate waste water treatment plants. Airborne chemicals can cause the
evacuation of the area downwind of the spill, including critical facilities. Damage to road
surfaces from chemical spills may require the removal and replacement of the entire road
surface and foundational road bed. Transformers used in power transmission contain
chemicals called PCB (Poly chlorinated bi-phenols) that can be released during wind
storms or lightning strikes and traffic accidents. The impacts to business from interrupted
commute/road or railroads closures can last for hours, days, weeks, or longer. White
powder incidents have closed postal facilities and government buildings until the
substance was identified and removed
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The Community Right to Know Act, and other related legislation, resulted from serious
breaches in public confidence following massive releases, explosions, or other failures in
hazardous materials systems. Any major incident in and of itself seems to offer proof to
the public of a regulatory failure. Maintaining Local Emergency Planning Committees and
a regular structure to report and analyze hazardous materials releases is critical to
maintaining public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
140
Regional Risk Profile: Health Incident79
Hazard Description
Disease has been one of the most influential factors in human history. On many occasions, disease has
shaped civilizations and altered the course of history. Throughout the 20th century great strides in
medicine have produced many treatments and cures for the deadliest diseases. Many of these medical
advances have given us a false sense of security that all diseases can be treated or cured in a timely
manner, even though the potential for a devastating disease outbreak continues to threaten our
community.
The impact of these diseases varies based on the virulence of the disease, duration of the illness,
susceptibility of the population to the disease, and spread within the community.
An outbreak can be characterized by the extent of spread of the disease. Epidemic refers to an increase,
often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in
that area. Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually
affecting a large number of people. More common diseases are classified as endemic, as they are at
baseline levels within a community. New or emerging diseases can quickly become an
epidemic/pandemic if there is little or no immunity in the population.
Common disease outbreaks include influenza, norovirus, pertussis, hepatitis A, Salmonella, and E. coli..
Novel strains of influenza are a great risk to King County, because of lack of immunity to a new
influenza virus stain, the potential for severe illness, and the high degree of transmissibility from person
to person.
For King County, the Communicable Disease Epidemiology & Immunization Section within Public
Health – Seattle & King County investigates and coordinates the surveillance of communicable disease
cases and outbreaks.
The impact of a disease can be tracked and characterized using several different indicators. These
indicators can help Public Health assess and respond to potential disease outbreaks.
• Incubation period: The stage of subclinical disease extending from the time of exposure to onset of
disease symptoms.
• Contagious period: The duration after infection during with the person can transmit the infection
to others.
• Infectivity: The proportion of exposed persons who become infected.
• Pathogenicity: The proportion of infected persons who develop clinically apparent disease.
• Virulence: The proportion of clinically apparent cases that are severe or fatal.
79 This risk profile was developed for the Seattle and King County Hazard Mitigation Plans by Public Health Seattle &
King County.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
141
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Epidemics directly affect the health of people who live, work, and visit a community. They have the
potential to be one of the deadliest hazards a community can face. Sickness is the most visible
consequence of an epidemic, but outbreaks can also severely impact the community as schools,
businesses, government agencies and non-profit organizations curtail operations due to employee illness
or as countermeasures. The effects of these curtailments grow the longer the disease persists.
In many epidemic and pandemic situations, disease spreads quickly throughout a community. There are
many factors that can increase King County’s vulnerability to disease spread:
• Rapid population growth, such as is occurring in King County, increases the potential for
acquisition and spread of infectious diseases.
• King County’s large international air and seaports (including an active cruise ship industry)
increase the number of visitors to our area and the risk for importation of infectious diseases.
Diseases that are not endemic to Washington have the potential for introduction and spread
among our residents. Vaccine preventable diseases (e.g., acute viral hepatitis, measles, and
influenza) are significant contributors to morbidity and potential mortality in international
travelers and can cause local outbreaks among susceptible persons.
• Persons experiencing homelessness often also have limited access to medical care, so many
people living homeless and with health problems have difficulty getting prompt treatment.
Living conditions – like crowding and fewer opportunities for personal hygiene – can contribute
to the spread of disease. If someone has an underlying medical condition, alcohol or drug use,
or weakened immune system, they are even more susceptible. In 2017 and 2018, CD-Imms
responded to increases in several infectious diseases among persons experiencing homelessness;
new infections and outbreaks in this population continue to be reported and might continue to
rise given the increase in persons experiencing homelessness in King County.
Disease often affects those most vulnerable in our communities. Young children, the elderly, the poor
and those with underlying health conditions are often the hardest hit by disease.
King County has a large concentration of healthcare resources, but in an epidemic or pandemic these
resources can be stretched or overwhelmed by the outbreak situation. The area also provides specialized
medical care for a large geographic area, including one of the area’s only pediatric hospitals and the only
Level 1 Trauma center for Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. In addition, Airlift Northwest
located at Boeing Field is the only life-flight agency serving the same four-state region.
Other resources, such as food and water, are also a concern when planning for disease outbreaks. King
County has many open reservoirs that provide water to the city. These reservoirs could become
contaminated and be a source of infection for area residents. Food sources can become contaminated
by improper food handling practices or ill food workers. Public Health conducts ongoing surveillance
for food- and waterborne illnesses to identify and quickly control outbreaks.
Although it is impossible to predict the next disease outbreak, history has shown that outbreaks are not
uncommon and can produce devastating effects on a community. While the revolution in medicine in
the past century has increased our ability to counteract disease, increases in the number of people
without adequate healthcare, the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria and globalization help make
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
142
outbreaks spread more quickly and increase their magnitude. Disease outbreaks not only cause
increased morbidity and mortality in the community, but also put a greater strain on the healthcare and
infrastructure system that could prevent the operation of critical services.
Throughout the 20th century several epidemics and pandemics have affected our community.
Influenza. 1918-1919: The influenza pandemic of 1918 was especially virulent, killing a large number of
young, otherwise healthy adults. The pandemic caused more than 500,000 deaths in the United States
and more than 40 million deaths around the world. The 1918 pandemic first arrived in Seattle in
October 1918; over the next six months the virus claimed 1,600 lives.
Influenza. 1957-1958: The influenza pandemic of 1957 was less severe than the 1918 pandemic and
caused a total of 70,000 fatalities nation-wide.
Influenza. 1968-1969: The influenza pandemic caused more than 34,000 deaths in the U.S. and cause
severe morbidity and mortality around the world.
E. coli. 1993: E. coli-contaminated hamburger meat from a local Jack in the Box caused illness in 400
people and led to the death of two people within one month in the Washington area. Cases were seen in
California, Idaho, and Nevada as well.
Pertussis. 2002-2005: Between 2002 and 2003 Public Health reported an 82% increase in the number of
Pertussis infections in infants, and a three-fold increase in the number of cases in children <6 months.
The occurrence of Pertussis in adolescents and adults has been on the rise since 1990, culminating in a
national epidemic in 2005 when 25,616 reported cases nation-wide. Outbreaks within healthcare
facilities can occur quickly because the bacterial infection is highly contagious.
Influenza. 2009: Like the 1918 pandemic, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 affected the young and healthy
populations as well as those with chronic diseases. This increase in morbidity caused strain on the local
healthcare system. Although the H1N1 virus was not as virulent and there were not nearly as many
fatalities as previous pandemics, the outbreak caused a larger than usual amount of disease in the
community than seasonal influenza virus does.
Scenario Drivers
The most likely scenario that activates the region’s emergency management system would be a disease
outbreak that just exceeds our public health system’s capacity. We have chosen hepatitis A outbreak for
the Most Likely Scenario. In 2017, several state and local health departments responded to hepatitis A
outbreaks, spread through person to person contact, that occurred primarily among persons who use
injection and non-injection drugs, and/or person who experienced homelessness and their close
contacts. Multistate outbreaks of hepatitis A infections have also been linked to food products (i.e.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
143
strawberries in 2016 and pomegranate seeds in 2013).80 A large outbreak centered in Seattle would cause
a strain on the public health system and potentially have strong impacts on local businesses, especially
any that the public perceives as responsible for the outbreak.
Hepatitis A Outbreak
Seattle is the center of a hepatitis A outbreak that kills 20 people and makes
hundreds severely ill, including hundreds of hospitalizations. The emergency is
complicated, and infections are spreading among people who are living homeless
who have limited access to adequate hygiene and prompt medical care.
Pandemic Flu
The most severe disease outbreaks would involve pathogens that would infect a
large percentage of an exposed population and hospitalize or kill many people.
Pandemic influenza has the potential to cause this great a disaster. It poses a great
threat to the health of our local community as well as the national/international
community. In addition to human morbidity and mortality, pandemic influenza
can have many socio-economic consequences. Cancellations of schools, work
and public gatherings may be enacted to attempt to halt the spread of disease.
Staff absenteeism can create a strain on government and healthcare systems
causing limitations of services and care. The 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak showed
how potentially easy it is to overwhelm the healthcare system, even though, as it
happened, H1N1 was an influenza that caused less severe disease than a typical
seasonal flu. A pandemic influenza that caused moderate or severe disease would
have a much larger impact on the community. The following table outlines
expected disease rates based on Center for Disease Control modeling.
Characteristic Moderate (1958/68 - like) Severe (1918 - like)
US
King
County US King county
Illness 90 million 540,000 90 million 540,000
Outpatient Care 45 million 270,000 45 million 270,000
ICU Care 128,750 733 1,485,000 8,910
Mechanical
Ventilation 64,875 389 742,500 4,455
Deaths 209,000 1,254 1,903,000 11,418
80 Centers for Disease Control. Hepatitis A Outbreaks in the United States. Accessed online on 6/28/19 from
https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/hepatitisaoutbreaks.htm .
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
144
Bioterrorism
Bioterrorism is another potential cause of on a catastrophic disease outbreak. The
maximum bioterrorism scenario is estimated by Public Health – Seattle & King
County to have impacts similar to the pandemic flu scenario identified above.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Old and young people People who are either old or young have weaker immune systems and are
usually more likely to succumb during an outbreak.
Healthcare staff
Healthcare staff come into regular contact with sick patients and are likely to
be exposed both before the illness is identified and during treatment.
People with compromised
immune systems
People with compromised immune systems are most likely to become
infected and succumb from a serious disease.
People without health
insurance
People without health insurance are more likely to delay getting care,
allowing the disease to spread farther before it is identified.
Health system
The health system is likely to be overwhelmed in any serious epidemic. In
especially serious outbreaks, it may be inadvisable for patients to even come
to the hospital and treatment may have to occur outside of hospital facilities.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
As many as 11,418 deaths are estimated to occur during the most severe pandemic
scenario. Thousands more would be hospitalized, and hundreds of thousands sickened.
As of May 4, 2019, there were 45 influenza fatalities in the 2018-2019 flu season.
Vulnerable
populations
In 2017-2018 flu season, there were nearly 1,000,000 hospitalizations and 79,400 deaths.
The most at-risk group is adults over 65 years of age (70% of hospitalizations).81 Older
adults account for nearly 90% of deaths. During a serious epidemic, older adults,
individuals with compromised immune systems, children, people without health
insurance, people who speak a language other than English, and people who are recent
immigrants to the country are likely to be the most at-risk and suffer the worst impacts.
Property There are no direct impacts to property.
The economy The economy may come to a virtual standstill for weeks on end during severe outbreaks
as people avoid public places. Many small businesses may lose too much revenue and be
81 Centers for Disease Control. Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United
States — 2017–2018 influenza season. Accessed online on 6/28/19 from
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
145
forced to close. Nationally, the economic impact of seasonal influenza has been estimated
as high as $166 billion (2012 dollars).82
The
environment There are no expected impacts to the environment.
Health
systems
Health systems will be overwhelmed and many nurses and doctors potentially sickened.
As facilities become unable to take additional patients, it may be possible to treat people
in outpatient facilities. During the worst-credible scenario, nearly 300,000 residents of
King County would require treatment. This would be far beyond the capacity of the
public health system.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Many government operations may cease to function on a normal basis during the most
severe outbreaks. Agencies may have to adopt work from home policies and take other
steps to protect employees. Due to employee illness, many non-essential functions may
have to be curtailed.
Responders Emergency services would be severely impacted during a serious outbreak because they
are likely to be exposed early due to public contact. As responders become sick, response
times and capabilities would be severely limited.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: There are no direct impacts, outside of employee absenteeism, to the
energy sector.
• Water/Wastewater: There are no direct impacts to the water and wastewater
system from most outbreaks, although this system is a potential target of
bioterrorist activities.
• Transportation: A disease would not cause any direct damage to the
transportation system, but high absenteeism would affect it. Public transit,
shipping, and other services may only function at 50% during especially severe
outbreaks.
• Communications: There are no direct impacts, outside of employee absenteeism,
to the communications sector.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The public understands that an outbreak is a severe natural event; however, restrictions
on public gatherings are not popular and create frustration. Some people may believe they
are not getting enough attention from the medical community. Others may begin to
doubt the efficacy of treatment options if the disease worsens. In the most extreme cases,
confidence in the medical system can be shaken.
82 Mao, Liang, Yang, Yang, Qui, Youliang, and Yan Yang. 2012. Annual economic impacts of seasonal influenza on US
counties: Spatial heterogeneity and patterns. International Journal of Health Geography vol. 11 no. 16. Accessed online on
6/28/19 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479051/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
146
Regional Risk Profile: Landslide
Hazard Description
The term “landslide” covers a range of geomorphic processes in which masses of soil, rock, debris (a
mixture of soil and rock) become detached and move downslope. This mass is usually wet, saturated, or
suspended in water. This movement can happen quickly or slowly; displaced material can remain solid
or move as a liquid. Landslides can range in size from a few cubic yards to millions of cubic yards. The
detailed character of movement is referred to herein as the landslide style. The style of landsliding
depends on the local geology, topography, and hydrology in the vicinity of the failure. Five general styles
of landslide phenomenon have been identified in King County:83
• Deep-seated landslides (including rotational slides, liquefaction spreads, debris flowslides,
• debris avalanches, and rock compound slides),
• Shallow debris slides,
• Processes that build depositional fans (including debris flows and debris floods),
• Rock fall, and
• Rock avalanches.
Landslides are usually a secondary hazard, typically driven by precipitation. Smaller and shallower
landslides are often triggered by storm events lasting hours or days. Large deep-seated slides may be
triggered by wetter than normal conditions that persist for months. Historical records and geologic
evidence also show that large earthquakes, while relatively infrequent can be significant landslide
triggers. Landslides can also be triggered by ill-advised clearing, grading, or stormwater discharge.
Landslides tend to happen in areas where there is a history of previous occurrences. Another major
determinant of landslide risk is local geology. King County’s landscape is very young and is largely a
product of multiple glacial advances over the last two million years, with the most recent advance
approximately 14,000 years ago. Landslides are most common where post-glacial erosion has created
steep slopes in glacial deposits, primarily along beach bluffs, ravine slopes, and river valley walls. In
addition to areas of steep slope some areas of lower slope are actually old, deep-seated landslides which
may be at risk of reactivation. Characteristics of landslide hazard areas include:8485
• A slope greater than 40 percent
• Landslide activity or movement in the last 10,000 years
• Stream or wave action with erosion or bank undercutting
83 King County. 2016. Mapping of Potential Landslide Hazards along the River Corridors of King County, Washington.
Prepared by River and Floodplain Management Section, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural
Resources and Parks. Seattle, WA. August.
84 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Landslide Exposure Assessment. Page 52.
85 Washington State Emergency Management Division. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Page 308.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
147
• The presence of a depositional fan that may indicate a history of debris flows, debris floods, or
rockfall
• The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such
as sand and gravel
Landslides are dangerous and unpredictable. Some landslides may show indications of impending or
incipient movement; others may happen suddenly without any warning signs. Warning signs of a
potential or impending landslide include:86
• Rapidly growing cracks in the ground; downslope movement of rock, soil, or vegetation.
• Sudden changes in creek water levels, sometimes with increased sediment, especially during or
right after large or protracted storm events
• Sounds of cracking wood, knocking boulders, groaning of the ground, or other unusual sounds,
especially if the sound increases
• A hillside that has increased spring and (or) seep activity, or newly saturated ground, especially if
it was previously dry
• Formation of cracks or tilting of trees on a hillside
• New or developing cracks, mounds, or bulges in the ground
• Sagging or taut utility lines; leaning telephone poles, deformed fences, or bent trees
• Sticking windows or doors; new and (or) growing cracks in walls, ceilings, or foundations
• Broken or leaking utilities, such as water, septic, or sewer lines
• Separation of structures from their foundation; movement of soil away from foundations
• Changes in water well levels or water wells that suddenly run dry
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
The most significant landslide risk in King County is during the rainy season from November through
January.
Areas in the County most at risk from landsliding include those on or near coastal bluffs, ravine and
valley slopes, and in steep mountainous topography. Parcels on slopes greater than 40 percent are at an
elevated risk of landsliding compared with more level sites. The landslide risk assessment used WA
DNR Landslides and Landforms digital data identifying historic landslide areas, potentially unstable to
intermediate-sloped areas, and potential deep-seated landslide areas.
Since 2006, there have been seven disaster declarations impacting the county, including DR-4168 for the
SR 530 (Oso) landslide in Snohomish County. Landslides occur during virtually every major storm event
and earthquake. Landslides are especially likely in areas where they have been recorded before. A good
method of assessing likelihood of a future landslide is to know if the area has had a history of landslides.
86 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Landslide Hazards in Washington State. Accessed online
on 6/7/19 from https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_fs_landslide_hazards.pdf?h283k .
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
148
• 2001 – DR1361 – Nisqually Earthquake triggers landslides around the state. $66.7M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
• 2006 - DR-1737 – Severe storms trigger flooding and landslides. $29.5M in Public Assistance
(statewide) was authorized along with $5.4M in Individual Assistance.
• 2007 – DR-1734 – Severe winter storms trigger landslides. $61.3M in Public Assistance was
authorized along with $21.2M in Individual Assistance.
• 2009 – DR-1817 – Sever winter storms trigger flooding and landslide.
• 2011 – DR-1963 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides.
• 2014 – DR-4168 – A slope along SR 530 in Snohomish County fails, bringing with it an entire
neighborhood and killing 43 people. This is one of the deadliest disasters in Washington State
History. There is a long history of landslides in this area and the tragedy leads the state to invest
in a new landslide mapping program.
• 2012 – DR-4056 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides. $30.1M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
• 2017 – DR-4309 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides. $12.5M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
149
Scenario Drivers8788
For planning purposes, King County looks at three common or particularly deadly landslides. These
usually result after major weather events or due to human activities or other disturbances such as a
major wildfire.
Deep Landslide
Deep-seated landslides are those that fail below the
rooting depth of trees and vegetation. They are
often slow moving but can also move rapidly.
Deep-seated landslides can cover large areas and
devastate infrastructure and housing developments.
These landslides usually occur as translational slides,
rotational slides, or large block slides. Deep-seated
landslides are typically much larger than shallow
landslides, in terms of both surface area and
volume. A deep-seated landslide may appear stable
for years, decades, or even centuries. These long-
lived features can be partially or entirely reactivated
for a variety of reasons.
Debris Flows
Debris flows usually occur in steep gullies, move
very rapidly, and can travel for many miles. Slopes
where vegetation has been removed are at greater
risk for debris flows and many other types of
landslides. The figure shows a series of flows
located in the Cedar River Watershed. The ages of
these slides are unknown, but they are geologically
very young as they overlap (and therefore post-date)
the entire suite of river terraces present here. The
exact trigger for this assemblage of large, closely
spaced landslides is unclear.
87 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
88 Washington State Geologic Survey. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/7/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides#types-of-landslides.8
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
150
Shallow Landslides
Shallow debris slides (also known as shallow
landslides) are a common style of slope movement
both in the Puget Lowland and Cascade Mountains.
Shallow debris slides are characterized by failure of
a relatively shallow layer of soil typically sliding on a
surface of more competent material, either bedrock
or dense glacial sediments. Shallow debris slides are
typically 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) and translational.
Shallow colluvial soils on slopes are formed through
a variety of processes, including breaking up of the
underlying in-place substrate (either bedrock or
Quaternary sediments) by freeze/thaw,
wetting/drying, bioturbation, and chemical
weathering. Soils on steep slopes in King County
vary significantly with respect to soil thickness, soil
strength, and hydraulic properties; this variability
presents the central challenge in assessing their
stability across a landscape.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Homes built above, on, or
below bluffs or slopes
Homes built on bluffs or other slopes apply addition weight to a slope and
increase the likelihood of slope failure. Homes built below bluffs have also
been destroyed by slope failure.
Transportation corridors,
including on I-90 and
Seattle-Everett BNSF rail
line
Transportation routes are often cut through steep areas or travel through
valleys with a history of landslides.
Debris flows after
vegetation removal
Coseismic Landsliding
Vegetation removal due to logging, land development, view clearing, or
wildfire reduces the root strength that often anchors and reinforces shallow
soils. Shallow landslides often increases following vegetation removal and if
debris from such a slide enters a hillside swale it may transition into a debris
flow that can have devastating impacts far below and distant from the initial
failure.
This Risk Profile addresses primarily landsliding for which our region has
significant collective experience. This includes of landslides triggered by
weather events and human disturbance. Geologic evidence is clear that this
region is subject to earthquakes from several sources larger than those that
have been well documented in the historical record. Widespread landsliding
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
151
is likely to be a secondary but significant and potentially catastrophic
consequence of a future occurrence of such a large earthquake xx.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
While the total number of people exposed to landslides is relatively small, and the risk of
a rapid slope failure has tended to be low, many homeowners do not carry insurance to
cover losses from landslide hazards. The total number of people exposed to the landslide
hazard is unknown since landslide hazards are spatially limited and do not align with
population information in Census data.
Vulnerable
populations
No additional impacts to vulnerable populations are expected from this hazard.
Property In total, 2.6 percent of structures in King County are identified as being within a landslide
hazard area, resulting in an estimated $9.8 billion in exposed value. The City of Lake
Forest Park has the highest percentage of structures exposed in a landslide hazard area at
16.4 percent. The cities of Bellevue and Seattle and unincorporated King County are
estimated to each have over $1 billion of estimated exposed value within landslide hazard
areas.89 The slopes of Magnolia, West Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, Vashon Island,
Newcastle, Federal Way and many areas of Bellevue have long been developed for their
magnificent views of
Mount Rainier, the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, and Puget Sound. Homes with
vistas of the Olympic Mountains provide sunsets that are breathe taking – and expose a
risk of land movement damages to property build on poor soils.
The economy There have been direct and indirect impacts to the greater King County community from
landslide activity. Residential housing in the greater Puget Sound area that have been built
to enjoy the spectacular mountain of the Olympics and Cascade ranges and water views
of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Puget Sound are vulnerable to land
movement. Loss of transportation can also have economic impacts. In November 2008,
State Road 410 was closed as the result of a debris flow east of Enumclaw. A landslide
caused damage to the Green River Bridge on State Route 169 that resulted in the bridge
being closed for repairs for eight months. These incidents resulted in SBA loans to
89 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Landslide Exposure Assessment. Page 52.
xx A scenario study of seismically induced landsliding in Seattle using broadband synthetic seismograms
Allstadt, K., Vidale, J.E., and Frankel, A., 2013, A scenario study of seismically induced landsliding in Seattle using
broadband synthetic seismograms, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 103(6), 2971-2992
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
152
impacted businesses. The SR 530 Oso landslide caused a complete reroute of the main
highway between Everett and Darrington, devastating the local economy and forcing
residents to commute several hours longer to work each day.
The
environment
Landslides that fall into streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well
as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolonged
periods of time due to landslides. However, landslides also provide integral resources for
many ecosystems. They contribute needed gravel and sediment or wood for building
complex in-stream habitats, estuarine marshes, and beaches that are important for
fisheries, wildlife and recreation. The Cedar River was partially dammed by slide debris
from the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001. Similarly, in March of 2004, a landslide near
Renton partially dammed the Cedar River again. All major rivers in King County support
salmon and/or steelhead spawning populations.
Health
systems No special impacts to health systems are expected from this hazard.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Most impacts to King County delivery of essential services are indirect. Roadways closed
may impede the county work force from reaching work locations. Transfer stations for
solid waste management and sewer lines and lift stations feeding the Metro South Plan,
West Point Treatment facility or Brightwater facility may be impacted by slide activity.
Only a small number of bus routes use roadways with the potential for impacts by slide
activity. Slide activity has resulted in first responder access issues and diverted road and
infrastructure maintenance resources. Resulting detours have also impacted the commute
of essential workers to their normal work locations. Some slide activity has caused
temporary access issues for solid waste transfer stations and to the Cedar Hills Landfill
locations.
Responders Most commonly, homes are isolated and ready access to communities by first responders
is impeded by slide activity. Access to schools, businesses, and public services may be
impeded by road blockages from slide activity. While no recent deaths or injuries have
been reported in King County from land movement, the incident in Snohomish County
referred to as the SR 530 Slide or the Oso Slide, 43 people were killed (2014).
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Landslides pose some risk to transmission lines that cross unstable slopes.
Otherwise, landslides are not a primary concern for this sector.
• Water/Wastewater: Landslides or debris flows in and around reservoirs or
waterbodies that support water systems can cause disruptions in water services
and the loss of infrastructure. Water supply pipelines may cross unstable areas
and be damaged by slope movement. Even if not directly impacted by earth
movement, systems that pull water directly from impacted waterbodies will have
to deal with increased turbidity or a loss of supply if the water is temporarily cut
off by earth damming or rerouting a river. Finally, failures in water system
transmission mains can actually saturate a slope and trigger landslides.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
153
• Transportation: Transportation routes can be closed for long periods by
landslides and rockslides. The following are some documented incidents. In
November 2008, State Road 410 was closed as the result of a debris flow east of
Enumclaw. A landslide caused damage to the Green River Bridge on State Route
169 that resulted in the bridge being closed for repairs for eight months. These
incidents resulted in SBA loans to impacted businesses. In May 2005, 11 homes
were isolated after a small slide on Mercer Island. That September, two lanes of I-
90 west of Snoqualmie Pass were closed after a rockslide. A January 15, 1997
slide at Woodward in southern Snohomish County derailed five cars of a freight
train. Passenger and cargo rail traffic was interrupted for nine days. Cargo traffic
resumed first. Amtrak remained concerned for passenger safety and did not travel
on this section of track for several weeks. This type incident can happen almost
annually and sometime more than once each year.
• Communications: There is limited risk to communications systems as a whole
from landslides. Given the redundancy in systems and proliferation of cell towers,
which tend to be less vulnerable, landslides are not a primary concern.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The 2014 SR 530 Oso landslide demonstrated some of the major weaknesses in
emergency management capabilities. It also demonstrated a lack of regulation and
foresight on the part of government in the permitting of development in the area, which
was a known slide area. Local critical areas ordinances do require mitigation for
construction in slide hazard areas, but in the Oso slide, this proved to be inadequate. A
failure by develops, the government, and residents to properly account for slide risk and
protect people from it led to multiple lawsuits and a general lowering of public
confidence in government’s ability to properly regulate land development.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
154
Regional Risk Profile: Severe Weather
Hazard Description
Severe weather events occur annually in King County, especially between October and April. Severe
weather can include heavy rain, snow, and ice; drought; extreme heat and cold; and high winds.
Secondary effects of severe weather can include avalanche, flooding, landslides, power outages, and
increased demand on medical services such as during extreme heat events. Many of these events are
expected to increase in frequency, duration, and/or intensity as the climate changes, and new weather
hazards are growing in importance, especially heat and drought. The most frequent impacts from severe
weather events are in the rural or suburban parts of the county, where it can take days or weeks to clear
roads or restore power; however, events such as extreme cold or heat have a greater impact on urban
parts of the county, where there are large unsheltered populations.
The most common source of damaging/severe weather is the Pineapple Express or atmospheric river
event. This phenomenon results from moisture picked up by the jet stream over warm areas of the
Pacific Ocean that drops as intense precipitation when the moisture-laden air rises over the Olympic
and Cascade Mountains. Atmospheric river events are a significant contributor to river flooding in
King County.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Though known for being wet, the Seattle metro area has around the same average annual precipitation
as Dallas, Texas, and much less than New York City, Houston, Atlanta, or New Orleans. Higher
amounts of rainfall occur as you move closer to the Cascades. King County owes its mild climate to the
influence of Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean, which moderate the climate, and to the protective
barrier of the Cascade mountain range, which blocks cold air from the interior.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
155
Given the rarity of extreme snow events, King County maintains a relatively low budget for snow
removal services. When major incidents do occur, vehicles and drivers can be stranded almost anywhere
in the county. Impacts from unusually heavy snowfalls and severe winter weather in King County tend
to be short-lived, although there are exceptions. A well-known example is the 2008 winter storm, the
largest event since 1996. In the 2008 ‘Seattle Snowpack,’ snow blanketed Seattle and much of King
County and remained on the ground from December 13 to December 27 due to a prolonged period of
cold temperatures. At the time, Seattle did not use salt to clear roadways, due to environmental
concerns. This decision was reversed after the storm event.
Climate change is a major concern for King County. Climate change is projected to lead to drier, hotter
summers and more heavy rain events. The consequences of these events can include floods, landslides,
avalanches, droughts, and wildfires. The economic consequences can be serious since communities
generally are not prepared for extreme weather events, and some events (such as flooding and wildfire)
can have widespread impacts on public and private infrastructure. Extreme weather can also affect
public health. For example, some climate scenarios project that hundreds of Seattleites could die in each
extreme heat event if global temperatures rise 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels.90
The majority of disaster declarations in King County are from severe weather events. Disasters are
usually declared for a combination of severe storms or winter storms, mudslides, heavy rains, and
straight-line winds. The primary impacts and costs triggering these declarations include emergency
protective measures for, and damage to, utilities, roads, and bridges, and for costs associated with debris
removal.
Major Weather Disaster Declarations Including King County
DECLARATION NUMBER DESCRIPTION FEMA-APPROVED
DAMAGES (KING
COUNTY ONLY)
852 1990, Jan - Flooding $5,246,411
883 1990, Nov - Flooding $3,694,824
896 1990, Dec – Flooding $477,737
981 1993, Jan – Inaugural Day Wind Storm $1,927,837
1079 1996, Jan – Winter Storm $3,031,519
1100 1996, Feb – Flooding $4,226,719
90 Bush, Evan. June 14, 2019. Seattle unprepared for deadly heat waves made worse by global warming, researchers sa y.
The Seattle Times. Accessed online on 6/17/19 from: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/heat-
waves-could-kill-hundreds-more-in-seattle-as-globe-warms-researchers-say/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
156
1159 1997, Jan Winter Storm $3,576,309
1172 1997, April – Flooding $1,266,446
1499 2003, Nov – Flooding $4,400,000
1671 2006, Nov Flooding $16,000,000
1682 2006, Dec – Hanukkah Eve Windstorm $29,000,000
1734 2007, Dec – Winter Storm $72,500,000
1817 2009, Jan – Winter Storm $17,000,000
1825 2009, Mar – Winter Storm $5,500,000
1963 2011, Feb – Winter Storm $8,697,563 (Statewide)
4056 2012, Feb – Winter Storm $32,345,445 (Statewide)
4309 2017, Feb – Winter Storm $26,612,080 (Statewide)
King County Drought Declarations
YEAR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
1919 Water Shortage Dry summer
1928-30 Statewide drought Rainfall was 20% of
normal
1952-53 Water shortage Lack of winter
precipitation
1977 Severe to Extreme Drought Low Precipitation
1965-66 Water shortage Dry throughout state
1967 Water shortage Dry summer
2001 Moderate to Severe Drought; statewide Low Precipitation
2005 Water shortage, March – King Co Drought
Response Plan Activated
Record Low
Precipitation, low snow
pack, low river levels
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
157
2015 Water shortage record low snowpack Snow pack at 0 in
central Puget Sound by
mid-May
Scenario Drivers
Severe weather can occur in any season. This may include: rain, wind, tornados and funnels clouds, ice,
snow, hail, extreme heat, or extreme cold. Climate change is expected to affect extreme weather
incidents by changing the frequency, intensity, and/or severity of events.
Rain and Snow
Precipitation
The geographical location of northwestern Washington subjects it to several natural
climatic controls: the effects of terrain, the Pacific Ocean, and semi-permanent high-
and low-pressure regions located over the North Pacific Ocean combine to produce
significantly different weather conditions within short distances. Rainfall in King
County varies widely from city to city and area to area. The City of Seattle has an
average of 37 inches annually, while Enumclaw has an annual average of 57.9 inches
and Snoqualmie/North Bend has 61+ inches of precipitation. The majority of this
precipitation occurs as rain in the lowlands between October and early May with
substantial snow pack in the Cascades during the same time frames. Precipitation on
Snoqualmie Pass in the unincorporated community of Hyak (2800 feet) average 410
inches of snowfall from October to May.
Snow accumulations in King County at elevations below 2,000 feet are uncommon. On
average, Seattle will have one or two snow storms during a winter season with
appreciable accumulations. Snow accumulation rarely remains two days after such a
storm. Heavy local snows and associated cold conditions have resulted in power
outages, transportation system impacts, school closures, and adverse impacts to the
regional economy.
Wind
High wind events in King County are fairly common and are usually experienced as
part of a winter weather pattern. Annually, wind gusts of 40-45 miles per hour are
recorded locally (NOAA) with severe wind incidents recording speeds of 90 miles per
hour and greater. Winter wind incidents often include: widespread power outages, road
and bridge closures, tree damage, airport closures/re-routing, hospitalizations or
fatalities related to carbon monoxide poisoning, and injuries to utility workers, first
responders, and the public. One of the best known wind events was the Inaugural Day
Windstorm on January 19, 1993. Winds began mid-morning, lasted five hours and
reached over 90 miles per hour in downtown Seattle. The Hanukkah Eve Windstorm
of December 15, 2006 heavily damaged the Seattle area power grid, affecting hundreds
of thousands in the subsequent weeks. Usually, these damaging winter winds are from
the south.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
158
Tornado
King County and the Puget Sound region do experience tornado activity. Tornados
have reached F3 designation within the region, but the slower F0 and F1 class tornados
are more common. In September of 2009 the Enumclaw area experienced a class F1
tornado. Though wind speeds of up to 110 mph were estimated, the most substantive
damage recorded was the uprooting of trees and damage to roofs, much of which
could be attributed to the preceding storm. Tornados are a result of strong weather
systems and often times accompany serve wind, rain, and hail. It is not unusual to have
funnel clouds spotted during the winter season.
Extreme Cold
and Ice
King County’s marine climate results in very few extreme cold/ice events. Regionally,
temperatures below freezing occur for extended periods for 10-14 consecutive days in
January or February each winter. Transportation impacts to buses, trains, roads, bridges
include snow routes, shelter needs, and power outages. The December 26, 1996 storm
lasted 11 days. Multiple consecutive freezing days can threaten the lives of unsheltered
and lower-income individuals, requiring the opening of additional shelter beds or more
heating assistance funding.
Extreme Heat
Climate change is expected to lead to warmer winters and hotter summers. Health
sensitivity to heat events is higher in the Puget Sound region due to the lack of air
conditioning in our region. Public Health Seattle-King County will activate cooling
centers and public messaging for multiple days in the mid-80s.
Drought
With the anticipation that higher winter temperatures reduce our snowpack, drought
conditions in the summer following low snowpack rises dramatically. Lower snow pack
and drier summers can result in lower reservoirs and increased calls for water
conservation, reduced water availability and higher mortality for salmon and steelhead
runs (due to high water temperature and low river flows), impacts on local crops and
livestock, and increased emergency room visits due to heat stress. Some degree of
drought conditions exists where precipitation is less than 75% of normal. Drought has
become a growing concern in the Northwest both because of variable rainfall patterns
and because of observed increases in temperature in the summer. With a higher risk of
drought and hotter temperatures, wildfire has become a higher risk for King County.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Unsheltered populations
Populations needing shelter are especially exposed during heat and cold
events. Since King County has a moderate climate, many of these
populations are unprepared. Cold events may require opening additional
shelter spaces and canvassing areas to offer shelter services.
Rural transportation
corridors
Rural transportation routes are lower priority and may not even be cleared at
all during a snow event.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
159
Immigrant populations
and those with limited
English proficiency
Populations with limited English proficiency or who are inexperienced with
Northwestern climate are more likely to take risky actions, like operating a
generator or grill indoors for heat. These populations are also less likely to
receive information and warnings about weather systems and to know where
to go for help.
Power transmission
systems
Power transmission systems, especially power lines, are frequently damaged
during storms with high winds by falling trees. During major wind events, it
is not uncommon to have hundreds of thousands of residents without
power.
Low-income and
minimum-wage
populations
Populations working in low-wage professions such as extractive industries
and service industries can be severely impacted from multi-day weather
events that impact transportation systems. These events can trigger a long-
term decline in living standards or even homelessness in these populations.
Service industry during
peak periods
Many service businesses, especially retail, are heavily dependent on income
earned during certain months of the year. A major event around the
Christmas holidays, for example, can threaten the viability of many
businesses.
People dependent on
public transportation
Public transit moved to the most restrictive routes ever recorded during the
February 2019 snowstorm. These cutbacks had apparent disproportionate
impacts on underserved areas, including some areas with populations
dependent on transit. When transit services are cut, it can be impossible for
these populations to get to work or appointments.
People with chronic
medical conditions
People requiring regular care from doctors are negatively impacted by severe
weather events. During heatwaves, people with chronic illnesses, especially
heart and respiratory conditions, are also disproportionately impacted.
All residents during multi-
day events
Although campaigns recommend having two weeks of food and supplies
available, few residents follow this guidance, regardless of income. After
more than a few days, many residents will run out of food for themselves
and any pets.
Residents down private
roads
Private roads are not eligible to be cleared by public snow removal services.
Many homeowner’s associations contract with the same set of snow removal
companies. These companies may become overwhelmed during long-
running events.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
160
Water and wastewater
systems facilities
Damage to water and wastewater facilities can occur due to a secondary
hazard, flooding and tidal surge. These facilities are often built in low-lying
areas. The severe damage and release of untreated water that occurred at
King County’s West Point Treatment Plan occurred during a severe weather
event.
Buildings on slopes of
greater than 40% grade
Landslides are a major secondary hazard of severe precipitation events.
Buildings on or near slopes of greater than 40% grade are most at-risk.
Travelers at airport
facilities
Airport facilities are frequently impacted by severe weather events, but often
have plans and procedures to contain disruption. During multi-day events,
however, passengers can be stranded and there can be a shortage of hotel
rooms since many airlines contract with the same hotels.
Waste Management Garbage pickup can be delayed for weeks. This causes significant public
frustration.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Anyone present in King County at the time of a weather incident is subject
to the potential impacts of severe weather incidents. While the likelihood of a
winter weather incident is high, the likely of direct and significant impacts is
Moderate.
Impacts to residents may include: personal property damages, interruption of
sports and recreation, extension of the daily business commute, impacts to
daycare and school closures, injuries, and sheltering needs from power
outages. Avalanche control may be needed to reduce the impact to alpine
and cross-country skiing enterprises. Injuries and deaths do occur from
avalanche impacts to recreational skiers. Impacts from drought take time to
materialize as water shortage cause restrictions to water usage and issue of
burn bans to reduce the threat of wildfires, especially in suburban areas. Only
the most severe weather incidents have an impact on local employment.
Vulnerable populations
Severe weather events, while usually concentrating impacts on infrastructure
and agriculture, can seriously threaten the lives of vulnerable people. Cold
and hot weather events can lead to an increase in fatalities among the elderly
and homeless populations. Immigrant and low-income populations also have
been known to succumb by carbon monoxide poisoning that can occur
when generators or grills are lit indoors and without proper ventilation. Snow
can trap people indoors for days, something especially threatening for people
with food insecurity or chronic health conditions that require access to
medical services. Any disruption to the economy is also especially threatening
to those who are low-income or who work in hourly work or in the service
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
161
sector. When those jobs are not open, they frequently do not pay wages,
which can threaten the entire livelihood of a low-income family.
Property All structures in the county are subject to the direct impacts of severe
weather incidents. These same structures are subject to flood impacts where
they may be in the flood plain. Structures along the coastline (seawalls) may
be eroded. Local urban flooding also occurs from storm debris clogged
sewers.
High winds that accompany winter weather fronts often cause infrastructure
damages, power outages, and communications interruptions. Rain saturated
soils may cause mudslides that close roadways, damage bridges, and buried
rail service interruptions
Private property damages to homes and vehicles from floods, trees downed
from wind and saturated soils are regular occurrences. Private property
experiencing repeated flood damages may require elevation of the structure
or offers of buy outs (mitigation efforts).
High winds, snow, and icy conditions can close airports or cause flight delays
and rerouting. Mountain pass conditions may be so severe that they are
closed to all traffic for days at a time. The floating bridges over Lake
Washington (I-90 and SR 520) experience closures for sustained winds over
45 miles per hour. These closures extend the business commute with
increased traffic on surface streets and routes around Lake Washington.
Impacts to emergency medical services from impacts to the roadways of the
county can delay response times, restrict emergency room staff and supplies,
and result in under staffing EMS and hospitals during severe weather
emergencies.
The economy There are several local ski areas important to King County: Crystal Mountain
(Chinook Pass); Alpental, Hyak, and Ski Acres (Snoqualmie Pass); and
Steven’s Pass (Steven’s Pass). Ski area closures can occur from both large
snowfalls and where snow is too light or melts off. This can impact seasonal
employment at the ski areas.
Also associated with the passes, as outlined in the avalanche chapter, a
WSDOT study claimed that a four-day closure at Snoqualmie Pass in the
winter of 2007/2008 cost the state $27.9M in economic output, 170 jobs,
and $1.42M in state revenue (2008 dollars).
Businesses can be severely impacted when weather events impede mobility
during high seasons, such as around the holidays. Since a large percentage of
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
162
annual personal spending is spent during the November-December season,
negative weather limits access to stores and can cause stores to close.
Drought conditions can impact the regional agricultural output of fruits,
vegetables, and flowers grown in all the major river basin areas of King
County. Regional drought conditions can impact generation of hydroelectric
power and drive up electric rates as well as increase usage during hot
summers.
The most serious and longest-lasting impacts may be to low-income
individuals and families who may lose jobs or days of wages due to snow
closures. Debt traps caused by missed bills due to lost wages can damage a
family for months or years.
The environment Severe weather can have impacts to the environment through flooding and
floodplain damages to salmon and steelhead habitat, wetland impacts to
amphibians and reptiles, and bird sanctuaries. Oddly, this can occur from
both too much water (flooding or dam failure) or too little snow pack and
resulting drought conditions. Hillside destabilization can occur where soil
geology and saturation of soils occur.
The moisture content of vegetation drops throughout the summer. Dry
conditions can result in an increase in the threat of wildfires from lightning
strikes, unattended campfires, fireworks, sparks from automobiles, cigarettes
thrown from cars on roadways and other heat sources.
The dilemma of drought conditions is the balance between human water
needs and the protection of the environment including plants, wildlife, and
fish that require minimum stream flows to support their annual spawning
migrations. Dry conditions also contribute to higher water temperatures,
which causes increased salmon mortality.
Health systems Severe weather disrupts the regular schedule of patient visits and regularly-
scheduled appointments for chronic care. Severe weather also can cause
more demand on the health system as people are injured or are unable to
leave the hospital to return home. Any disruptions to electricity and water
supply also can be a threat, though hospitals generally maintain backup
generators.
During severe cold or warm spells, public health may be required to provide
additional patient transport services and to canvass for homeless populations
that may be in need of shelter. During the February 2019 snowstorm,
hospitals suffered major staffing shortages as doctors and nurses were unable
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
163
to get to work. Staff had to work longer than normal hours and potentially
stay temporarily at or near the hospital.
Although both requiring the expansion of sheltering services, heat and cold
differ because older and less health populations are especially at risk to hot
temperatures. One of the most famous examples is the 1995 Chicago heat
wave, during with 739 people lost their lives, with the city unprepared to
provide support to residents who may be home bound or offer sufficient
cooling centers to support residents. In Seattle, where few residents have air
conditioners, deaths from heat events is a growing threat.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
During the February 2019 snowstorm, King County took the unprecedented
step of closing many government offices to protect employee safety. After
two days, due to the growing amount of snow and the need to resume
services, offices were reopened. Even with the reopening, many employees
chose to telework due to safety concerns. An earlier activation of the EOC
for the 1996 snow/ice storm saw activations for 11 days – 2 shifts per day
when 16 inches of snow came and stayed for weeks. During that time frame,
buses were on snow routes, up to 40% of the employees for King County
government were either unable to get to work or arrived very late. A major
improvement from 1996 to 2019 is that it is now much easier to telework,
meaning that non-public-facing positions can work remotely for days.
Hospitals, courts, detention facilities, businesses, law enforcement, fire and
emergency medical services were all severely impacted. Search and Rescue
volunteers transported medical personnel, emergency management staff, and
other essential employees to work and between hospitals for the duration of
the incident. During the February 2019 snowstorm, busses were on the most
restrictive service routes ever seen. These routes were established in response
to previous snow events. Similar impacts were observed for the January 2011
snow storm that impaired King County government operations for 8 days.
Some damages were experienced at crucial facilities around the county. See
FEMA Disasters 1079 and 1817 above. The recent February 2019
snowstorm did not receive a disaster declaration.
During that time frame, most regional public services were impacted by
absenteeism, access restrictions to critical facilities, and damage to vehicles
like buses, police cruisers, and aid units. Busses and other vehicles that use
tire chains are especially vulnerable to breaking down, which can delay a
return to full service, even once the snow has melted.
Responders Portions of the population may be stranded or isolated from the results of
severe weather, like roads blocked by trees and power lines, snow- and ice-
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
164
covered roads, water or slides over roadways. Closure of the mountain passes
for heavy snow conditions or avalanche control is a fairly common
occurrence.
Excessive heat that extends over days or weeks or cold conditions for similar
timeframes may result in the need for cooling or warming shelters. These
especially impact the poor, elderly, young, and infirmed.
First responders will be impacted by limited road access, impacts of heat and
cold on operations. Conditions will require monitoring efforts during
incident response.
Infrastructure systems • Power: Downed trees caused by high winds and rain saturated soils
can damage transmission lines and cause power outages in local areas
for hours to days when multiple occurrences are experienced. Utility
crews from Puget Sound Energy, Bonneville Power and Seattle City
Light work around the clock to restore services. The Inaugural Day
Windstorm left 750,000 customers without power. The Hanukkah
Eve Windstorm winds and subsequent heavy rains cut electricity to
more than 1.8 million customers, hundreds of thousand remained
without power for days. Downed power lines pose an electrocution
hazard to motorists, pedestrians and any unsuspecting by-standers.
During extremely hot temperatures, demands on the power system
can increase, especially as more residents install air conditioning. As a
winter-peaking system, however, this power demand will still likely
be lower than current winter demand.
• Water/Wastewater: Water and wastewater systems are vulnerable to
a multi-day loss of power as well as to serious flooding. In February
2017, as a result of heavy rains, high tides, and other severe weather,
an equipment failure at King County’s West Point Wastewater
Treatment Plan led to the dumping of over 235 million gallons of
untreated wastewater into Puget Sound. Drought can also impact
water systems as water levels in reservoirs and groundwater wells
drop.
• Transportation: Events that impact transportation can include severe
snow, ice, wind, and rain. Storms may cause downed trees and snow
or ice that temporarily blocks roadways or can cause large floods that
can wash out or undermine roads and bridges. For many parts of the
state and county, such as around the town of Skykomish, the loss of
a single route due flooding can completely cut the community off
from the rest of the county. This is especially a problem in the
eastern parts of the county that are more rural and have fewer
transportation route options.
• Communications systems can be knocked out by high winds or loss
of power transmission. While the move to cell phones has reduced
the vulnerability of telephone lines to outage caused by trees, a multi-
day loss of power can still shut down a cell transmission site.
Furthermore, high winds can damage or destroy critical equipment
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
165
on cell towers. Most equipment is built to withstand inclement
weather; however, especially severe conditions could still lead to
outages.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
The 2008 and 2011 snowstorms highlighted the shortage of snowplows and
the management of the general response to the snow incident in the City of
Seattle.
The February 2019 event can be regarded by many as much more successful
on the public perception front. Successful coordination of a regional call
center in the EOC to support other county departments and take snow
plowing requests helped ensure the public always had someone to call. The
county also maintained substantial engagement with media outlets. The
County Executive was fully involved as well, helping to boost awareness and
public perception that county government was engaged in the storm
recovery effort.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
166
Regional Risk Profile: Terrorism
Hazard Description
Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In
Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-
threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and…
appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States…” . Within the government, combating terrorism is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s top investigative priority. The FBI further defines terrorism as either domestic or
international:
• Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with
primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social,
racial, or environmental nature.
• International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with
designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
The terrorism threat has evolved significantly since the September 11, 2001 series of coordinated attacks
by the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States. The threat landscape (referring to
identified threats, trends observed, and threat actors) has expanded considerably. Three factors have
contributed to the evolution and expansion of the terrorism threat landscape:91
• Internet: International and domestic threat actors have developed an extensive presence on the
Internet through messaging platforms and online images, videos, and publications, which
facilitate the groups’ ability to radicalize and recruit individuals receptive to extremist messaging.
• Social Media: Social media has allowed both international and domestic terrorists to gain
unprecedented, virtual access to people living in the US in an effort to enable homeland attacks.
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in particular, encourages sympathizers to carry out simple
attacks where they are located against targets—in particular, soft targets. This message has
resonated with supporters in the US and abroad. Several recent attackers have claimed to be
acting on ISIS’ behalf.
• Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs): The FBI defines HVEs as global-jihad-inspired
individuals who are based in the US, have been radicalized primarily in the US, and are not
directly collaborating with a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). HVEs may assemble in
groups but typically act independently in attacks or other acts of violence.
91 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2019. Terrorism Webpage. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
167
Domestic terrorists can be ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ extremists such as white supremacists, anti-
government militias or anarchists. Domestic terrorists can also be ‘single-issue’ groups such as animal
rights or environmental rights extremists. And, domestic terrorists can also be ‘lone wolves’ with a
personal agenda or grievance and prepares, commits violent acts alone outside of any group support.
According to FBI Director Senate testimony in July 2019, the bureau has recorded about 100 domestic
terrorism arrests since December 2018 compared to about 100 international terrorism arrests.92 The
FBI, according to the director’s testimony, is most concerned with “lone offender attacks, primarily
shootings.” Earlier, at a congressional hearing in May 2018, the head of the FBI counterterrorism
division testified that the bureau was investigating 850 domestic terrorism cases and of that
approximately 350 of the cases involved racially motivated violent extremists93. Most in that group, he
said, were white supremacists.
In 2015, the Seattle division of the FBI revealed 70-100 active cases possibly linked to terrorism across
the state.94 In the years since revealing the breadth of terrorism investigations in Washington State,
domestic terrorism arrests outpaced jihad-inspired terrorism arrests nationwide.95 The US government
acknowledged the problem in its October 2018 ‘National Strategy for Counterterrorism’. "Notably,
domestic terrorism in the United States is on the rise, with an increasing number of fatalities and violent
nonlethal acts committed by domestic terrorists against people and property," the strategy paper says.96
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Terrorism events can be distinguished from other types of man-made hazards by three important
considerations:97
92 Zapotosky, Matt. July 23, 2019. Wray says FBI has recorded about 100 domestic terrorism arrests in fiscal 2019 and
many investigations involve white supremacy. The Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wray-says-fbi-has-recorded-about-100-domestic-terrorism-arrests-
in-fiscal-2019-and-most-investigations-involve-white-supremacy/2019/07/23/600d49a6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-
e73b603e7f38_story.html.
93 Zapotosky, Matt. July 23, 2019. Wray says FBI has recorded about 100 domestic terrorism arrests in fiscal 2019 and
many investigations involve white supremacy. The Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wray-says-fbi-has-recorded-about-100-domestic-terrorism-arrests-
in-fiscal-2019-and-most-investigations-involve-white-supremacy/2019/07/23/600d49a6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-
e73b603e7f38_story.html.
94 Kim, Hana. December 11, 2015. FBI investigating 70 to 100 cases in Washington State with possible ties to terrorism.
Q13 Fox News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://q13fox.com/2015/12/11/fbi-investigating-up-to-a-100-cases-
possibly-linked-to-terrorism-in-washington/.
95 Barrett, Devlin. March 9, 2019. Arrests in domestic terror probes outpace those inspired by Islamic extremis ts. The
Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/arrests-
in-domestic-terror-probes-outpace-those-inspired-by-islamic-extremists/2019/03/08/0bf329b6-392f-11e9-a2cd-
307b06d0257b_story.html.
96 Dilanian, Ken. August 9, 2019. There is no law that covers 'domestic terrorism.' What would one look like? NBC
News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/there-no-law-covers-
domestic-terrorism-what-would-one-look-n1040386.
97 Mid-America Regional Council. 2015. Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.marc.org/Emergency-Services-9-1-1/pdf/2015HMPdocs/HMP2015_Sec4-HAZ-Terrorism.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
168
• In the case of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents, there presence may not be
immediately obvious, making it difficult to determine when and where they were released, who
was exposed, and what danger is present for first responders.
• Terrorist events evoke very strong emotional reactions, ranging from anxiety, to fear to anger,
to despair to depression.
• Even failed attacks have long-term economic impacts for the targeted government and critical
infrastructure sector disproportionate to the cost of the attack itself.
The form and locations of many natural hazards are identifiable and, even in some cases, predictable;
however, there is no defined geographic boundary for terrorism. Based on previous historical events, it
is presumed that critical facilities, services, and large gatherings of people are at higher risk.
King County is the most populous county within Washington State and is ranked 12th most-populous in
the US according to the US Census Bureau. King County is geographically diverse characterized by
high-density urbanization along the shores of Puget Sound, suburban communities to the east, and rural
communities to the southeast. King County is the largest labor market in the state. In 2018, nearly 42
percent of all nonfarm jobs in Washington State were reported from King County-located businesses.
Within King County, the Washington State Fusion Center tracks over 800 annual large-gatherings that
encompass public assembly and outdoor events. These events include a diverse range of sites that draw
large crowds of people for shopping, business, entertainment, sports or lodging, as well as for fireworks,
marathons, festivals and parades.
English-language terrorist media continues to identify similar gatherings as “soft targets” and promote
them as potential attack sites. For example, Inspire #12 magazine published online by Al Qaeda,
suggested targeting locations “flooded with individuals, e.g., sports events . . . election campaigns,
festivals, and other gathering [sic]. The important thing is that you target people and not buildings.”98
Attacks targeting these types of events will continue to present security challenges to public safety
personnel, because attendees are anonymous and generally unscreened for prohibited items. Violent
extremist propaganda continues to urge lone actors to attack soft targets using small arms, knives, and
vehicles because they are simple and effective. Foreign terrorist organizations implore followers to kill
with whatever means available “whether an explosive device, a bullet, a knife, a car, a rock, or even a
boot or a fist.”99
Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, there were less than a dozen major terrorist events in
Washington State. Since then, violent extremism has become commonplace, on a global and national
98 National Counterterrorism Center. 2018. Planning and Preparedness Can Promote an Effective Re sponse to a
Terrorist Attack at Open-Access Events. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/First-Responders-Toolbox---Planning-
Promotes-Effective-Response-to-Open-Access-Events.pdf.
99 Farivar, Masood. July 18, 2016. New, Low-tech Terror Tactics Simple and Deadly. Voice of America. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.voanews.com/europe/new-low-tech-terror-tactics-simple-and-deadly.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
169
scale, and the number of local terrorism and violent extremism cases continue to rise.100 Some of the
most notorious terror cases in Washington State include the arrest of Ahmed Ressam, the “Millennium
Bomber,” in December 1999, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) firebombing of University of
Washington’s (UW) horticulture center in May 2001, and the foiled Seattle Military Entrance Processing
Station attack plot in 2011.
• On March 26, 2018, Thanh Cong Phan from Everett was arrested after mailing at least 11
suspicious packages to multiple military and government facilities in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area, which contained potential destructive devices. He was charged with shipping
of explosive materials, after the packages were found to contain small amounts of black
explosive powder.101
• On March 31, 2017, Muna Osman Jama of Reston VA and Hinda Osman Dhirane of Kent WA
were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years respectively, after being found guilty of conspiracy to
provide material support to al-Shabaab. The two reportedly organized an all-female fundraising
group, called the “Group of Fifteen,” who provided monthly payments to al-Shabaab;
facilitating and tracking money sent through conduits in Kenya and Somalia.102
• On August 25, 2017, Melvin Neifert from Selah was arrested and charged with receiving
incendiary explosive device materials—specifically, potassium nitrate and other materials to
make a potassium nitrate-sugar bomb—that were to be used in connection with the 2016 May
Day events. Federal authorities seized evidence and questioned Neifert on May 1, the same day
anti-capitalist demonstrations took place in Seattle.103
• On September 4, 2016, a fire was intentionally set at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman,
WA. Authorities recovered a video from inside the clinic showing a flammable object had been
thrown through the window. While no injuries were reported, and no suspects identified, there
is a history of domestic terrorism against the Pullman clinic.104
• On April 9, 2015, Blake Heger was arrested after attempting to place two shrapnel-laden pipe
bombs near a high foot-traffic area outside a hardware store in Puyallup, WA. Police were called
after a concerned citizen saw him sharpening large knifes in the parking lot. He was found with
100 United Nations Development Programme. 2016. Prevent Violent Extremism Through Promoting Inclusive
Development, Tolerance and Respect for Diversity. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.undp.org/content/dam/norway/undp-ogc/documents/Discussion%20Paper%20-
%20Preventing%20Violent%20Extremism%20by%20Promoting%20Inclusive%20%20Development.pdf .
101 Shayanian, Sara. March 28, 2018. Man charged with sending explosives to D.C. military sites. United Press Internationa.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/28/Man-charged-with-sending-
explosives-to-DC-military-sites/5591522255789/.
102 Department of Justice. Friday, March 31, 2017. Two Women Sentenced for Providing Material Support to Terroris ts.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-women-sentenced-providing-material-support-
terrorists.
103 Meyers, Donald W. August 31, 2016. Bail decision delayed in Selah explosives case. The Seattle Times. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/bail-decision-delayed-in-selah-explosives-case/.
104 The Associated Press. September 10, 2015. Video shows object thrown in Planned Parenthood arson. The Seattle
Times. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/video-shows-object-thrown-in-
planned-parenthood-arson-in-pullman/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
170
two additional pipe-bombs, four large knives, and a screwdriver that he had sharpened into a
dagger.105
• On January 1, 2014, Musab Masmari attempted to set fire to a gay nightclub on Capitol Hill in
Seattle, WA by spilling gasoline down a set of stairs and lighting it, while 750 people packed the
club's New Year’s Eve event. According to investigative documents, Masmari told a friend that
“homosexuals should be exterminated.” In July 2014, he was sentenced to ten years in federal
prison for arson.106
• On July 18, 2014, Ali Muhammad Brown was arrested after killing four people in WA and a
college student in NJ, as part of a personal vengeance against the U.S. government for its
actions in the Middle East. In 2004, he was arrested and prosecuted for his role in a bank fraud
scheme to finance fighters traveling abroad, and had known links to a disrupted terror cell in
Seattle, WA and Bly, OR in 1999.107
• On October 27, 2012, Abdisalan Hussein Ali, a 22-year old born in Somalia but raised in Seattle
and Minnesota, was the third American killed as an al-Shabaab suicide bomber in Mogadishu.
Ali was reportedly one of two bombers in an attack that killed “scores of African Union
peacekeepers.” He arrived in Seattle in 2000 and moved to Minneapolis before being recruited
into al-Shabaab and travelling to Somalia in 2008.108
• On September 8, 2011, Michael McCright was arrested and charged with second-degree assault
for a July 2011 incident where he intentionally swerved his vehicle at a government-plated
vehicle occupied by two U.S. Marines in Seattle. Known on the Internet as “Mikhail Jihad,”
McCright had ties to Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, a man convicted of plotting to kill federal
employees and military recruits in Seattle, WA.109
• On June 22, 2011, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh were arrested for planning to
attack the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Seattle with machine guns and
grenades after previously planning, but discounting, an attack at Joint Base Lewis McChord
(JBLM). According to FBI investigators, “Abdul-Latif said that ‘jihad’ in America should be a
‘physical jihad,’ and not just ‘media jihad’.”110
• On May 11, 2011, Joseph Brice of Clarkston WA was arrested for assembling, practicing, and
detonating explosive devices after an incident that occurred on April 18, 2010, when an
105 McCarty, Kevin. August 10, 2015. Man arrested after 2 bombs discovered outside Pierce County hardware store.
KIRO 7. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.kiro7.com/news/man-arrested-after-two-bombs-discovered-
outside-pi/28802706.
106 Carter, Mike. July 31, 2014. Man who set fire in Capitol Hill nightclub sentenced to 10 years. The Seattle Times.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-set-fire-in-capitol-hill-
nightclub-sentenced-to-10-years/.
107 Collins, Laura. September 18, 2014. Revealed, one man's terrifying 'jihad' on U.S. soil: Extremist 'executed four in
revenge for American attacks in the Middle East and carried out bank fraud for the Cause'. Daily Mail Online. Accessed
online on 8/26/19 from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759901/Revealed-terrifying-one-man-jihad-U-S-
soil-Extremist-executed-four-revenge-American-attacks-Middle-East-carried-bank-fraud-Cause.html.
108 Kron, Josh. October 30, 2011. American Identified as Bomber in Attack on African Union in Somalia . The New York
Times. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/world/africa/shabab-identify-
american-as-bomber-in-somalia-attack.html?_r=0.
109 Carter, Mike. May 29, 2012. Felon admits he tried to run Marines off I-5. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/felon-admits-he-tried-to-run-marines-off-i-5/.
110 The Associated Press. June 5, 2012. Seattle terror suspect wants evidence tossed. Fox News. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-terror-suspect-wants-evidence-tossed#ixzz28jz1MkOE.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
171
explosive device he made prematurely ignited, causing him significant injuries. He had a
YouTube channel called “Strength of Allah,” where he posted the videos in an attempt to
support terrorism.111
• On January 17, 2011, Kevin Harpham, an admitted white supremacist, placed a remote-
controlled backpack improvised explosive device (IED), with rat-poison coated shrapnel, at a
park bench near the marching route on the morning of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Parade
in Spokane, WA. Prosecutors said the device was “constructed with a clear, lethal purpose,” and
Harpham said it was intended to protest social concepts, such as unity and multiculturalism.112
Scenario Drivers
Terrorist attacks continue to take place at open-access events, mass gatherings, and outside the
perimeter of secured events, possibly because of a perceived lack of security, the availability of
publicized schedules, and largely unrestricted admittance. Examples of open-access events include
marathons, parades, protests, rallies, festivals, fireworks displays, farmers markets, and high-profile
funerals and vigils or memorials. Terrorists could also target gatherings located close to ticketed events,
such as tailgating adjacent to major sporting events or concerts113. Judging from previous terrorist plots
and attacks, terrorists will likely remain interested in conducting opportunistic attacks against civilian
targets, most notably mass gatherings. Techniques used in recent terror attacks have included the use of
vehicles as weapons, edged weapons, small arms, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Coordinated
Domestic
Extremist
Attack on
Seattle
The radicalization of Pacific Northwest extremist groups has recently been promoted by
other national terrorism movements which have called for violent resistance to destroy
human life and disable critical infrastructure. Radicalization starts to build in the Winter of
2018. Over the next six months there is an increase in expression of on-line animosity
towards the U.S. Government which calls for action on June 24. In recent weeks there
has been an increase via social media of on-line extremist groups indicating an intense
animosity and a belief of injustice by the U.S. Government. These local online indicators
show lone actors, inspired by extremist ideology, have been able to circumvent security
measures to take up small arms, make vehicle borne and rudimentary standalone
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with the stated intent to attack the Region. In
addition, there are calls for “Leaderless Resistance” making it difficult to locate, mitigate,
or prevent their stated intent. Within the Seattle Region, there is increasing concern about
a number of these groups starting to influence public opinion, which may lead to violent
actions. The on-line information promotes and warms of the need for longer and ongoing
111 Pignolet, Jennifer. Wednesday, June 12, 2013. Clarkston man convicted of trying to aid terrorists The Spokane
Spokesman-Review. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jun/12/bomb-maker-
sentenced/.
112 Clouse, Thomas. December 20, 2011. MLK bomb maker gets 32 years in prison. The Spokane Spokesman-Review.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/20/mlk-parade-bomber-seeks-
guilty-plea-withdrawal/.
113 National Counterterrorism Center. 2018. Planning and Preparedness Can Promote an Effective Response to a
Terrorist Attack at Open-Access Events. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/First-Responders-Toolbox---Planning-
Promotes-Effective-Response-to-Open-Access-Events.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
172
acts of violence to achieve superiority over current government authority. On July 3, there
are several online attacks which a precursor to the July 4th physical attacks on an iconic
building are, multiple active shooter events, vehicle borne violence and IEDs, and
unattended small items across the City of Seattle and surrounding areas.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Public events
Terrorists have increasingly targeted mass-gatherings in densely populated or
high profile areas. Consequently any major urban area in Washington State
could be considered at-risk as well as any crowded or high profile critical
infrastructure. The specific motivations of terrorists will largely dictate target
selection.
Terror tactics used by
non-terrorists
A new challenge that is emerging is the increasing use of terror tactics by
non-terrorists. A number of evolved weapons, tactics, and targets have
emerged through the sheer volume of attacks within the last decade. This
normalization of violence has been further exacerbated by extensive media
coverage and the ease by which detailed instruction manuals, ‘how-to’
videos, and online forums dedicated to weapons, explosives, and tactics. It is
“essentially shared community content, easily accessible for extremists of all
stripes to consume and put into action” including those with no affiliation to
foreign or domestic extremism ideologies.114 Lessons learned from past
attempts continue to shape the means by which attackers develop plots—the
push for using small arms, edged-weapons and vehicle ramming against soft
targets—instead of the often failed large-scale attacks.
Critical infrastructure
Infrastructure systems such as dams, water systems, bridges, and public
buildings are high-value targets to terrorists that both stand for government
order and, when lost, can cause significant regional harm to people, property,
and the economy.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents Any King County resident attending a public event could be a victim of a terrorist attack.
Vulnerable
populations
Some populations are more likely to be targeted by extremists than others. Terrorist
attacks and attempted attacks in the northwest have been motivated by white supremacy
(targeting non-white populations), xenophobia (targeting immigrants),
homophobia/transphobia (targeting gathering places of gay, lesbian, and transgendered
people), and anti-religious attacks against Muslims, Jews, Christians, or other religious
groups.
114 Johnson, Bridget. March 21, 2018. The Austin bomber and our new age of open-source terrorism: How Mark
Anthony Conditt likely benefited from Al Qaeda tutorials. The New York Daily News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/austin-bomber-new-age-open-source-terrorism-article-1.3888244.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
173
Property Property, including commercial buildings, venues, vehicles, places of worship, or other
areas are often damaged or destroyed during terror incidents. Trauma from the incident
can prevent the rebuilding of the facility in the same place.
The economy In addition to the economic costs of stepped-up security, attacks can have a huge impact
on a region’s economy. Places seen as less safe are less attractive to investors or visitors.
Often, terrorist attacks attempt to destroy part of the economy by killing tourists or
destroying an important piece of infrastructure.
The
environment
A major attack can pollute the environment and poison water and food sources. This can
have far-reaching, long-term consequences and damage animal and plant life as well as
people.
Health
systems
Health systems can be impacted as a target for attacks, by being overwhelmed with
patients in the aftermath of attacks, and by personnel being injured or killed from
secondary attacks or due to exposure to chemical or biological agents used in the attack.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Government facilities and employees are a common target for anti-government
extremists. These attacks can disrupt day-to-day operations for long periods of time and
require additional security measures to protect facilities and employees.
Responders Responders are often the first on the scene of an incident and therefore can be injured or
killed in shootings or due to exposure of chemical or biological agents. Responder
facilities, such as police stations, are also potential terrorist targets.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Energy facilities, including fuel pipelines, are common targets for
terrorists and saboteurs around the world. Many power facilities, such as
neighborhood substations, are relatively unguarded and, if lost, can have
immediate impacts on people and property in an area. Cyber-attacks are one area
where a large-scale attack on the energy system could cause widespread
disruption.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems are considered a high-impact potential target.
A chemical attack on a water system, if not immediately detected, could injure or
kill thousands, depending on the size of the water-system targeted.
• Transportation: transportation systems, especially public transit, have been targets
around the world, such as in the Madrid Train Bombings or the London Subway
Bombings. Attacks on busses are also common. These incidents can cause a loss
in public confidence in the transit system. Furthermore, an attack on a tunnel,
such as the I-90 tunnel across Lake Washington, can impede mobility in our
region over the long-term.
• Communications: Communications infrastructure, such as cell towers, are
relatively redundant and so somewhat less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. There is
a huge vulnerability, however, to cyber-terrorism, which can take multiple
facilities offline quickly.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
174
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
A failure to protect the public from a terrorist attack, even one that is thwarted at the last
moment, can cause a total failure in public confidence in government. As seen after
9/11/2001 or after attacks by white supremacists against African-American or Jewish
congregations, groups begin to feel isolated, threatened, and isolated from the
community. This is especially true in cases where government fails to quickly reassure
impacted communities and support them morally and with security resources.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
175
Regional Risk Profile: Tsunami and Seiche
Hazard Description
A tsunami is a series of fast, powerful, and destructive waves that radiate outward in all directions from
the source. Tsunamis are usually caused by a displacement of the ocean floor from an earthquake or the
collapse of an underwater land feature. Seiches are waves that form in any enclosed or semi-enclosed
body of water (i.e. lakes, bays, and rivers) from wind, atmospheric pressure, or seismic waves. Seiche
action can also affect harbors and canals.
The primary tsunami threat in King County is from a Seattle fault earthquake, or other events
originating in the Puget Sound Lowlands (such as big landslides into the water and possibly other faults).
Not all of King County has been modeled for tsunami hazards but scientists are actively working on it.
The tsunami inundation (flooding) impacts from a magnitude 7.3 Seattle fault event are shown below in
yellow:115 In addition to the Seattle fault, a Pacific ocean sourced tsunami, like a Cascadia Subduction
Zone event, can still affect King County. Wave arrival times for a Seattle fault and Cascadia-derived
tsunami are extremely different. In a Seattle fault event, the first wave arrives within minutes, where in a
Cascadia event, the first wave will arrive in approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. In both cases, wave
action will persist for multiple hours. An earthquake on the Seattle Fault could generate a seiche in Lake
Washington or Lake
Sammamish that could
impact cities including
Sammamish, Kenmore,
and Kirkland.
There can also be
significant maritime
hazard along the western
United States’ coastlines
associated with smaller
tsunamis. A tsunami from
a local Seattle fault event
would cause major
damage to port
infrastructure and
navigational terminals.
Additionally, powerful
distant tsunamis generated
across the Pacific Ocean
115 Washington Geologic Survey. Geologic Hazards Information Portal. Accessed online on 6/11/19 from
https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
176
can cause maritime hazards in the Puget Sound. Although these distant-sourced events generate
relatively smaller tsunamis than local-sourced events, there waves can still cause damage to boats, docks,
piers, and aids to navigation (e.g. channel markers, lighthouses, warehouses and port terminals used for
loading and unloading cargo ships). Moored boats and vessels underway in the harbor may also be
impacted by smaller distant-sourced tsunamis. For example, the 2011 earthquake off the coast of Japan
caused a relatively small eight-foot tsunami in Crescent City, California, which led to one hundred
million dollars in damaged boats and infrastructure. Anything near the shoreline that has the potential to
float or be moved by the wall of water can be carried away – ramming into other structures.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County includes the deep-water Port of Seattle and several cities that border Puget Sound,
including Shoreline, Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, and Federal Way. Together with Vashon Island,
unincorporated King County includes a great deal of industry, import/export activity, and commercial
and residential real estate that border bodies of water. These key waterfront areas are vulnerable to a
tsunami or seiche generated from an earthquake up to hundreds, if not thousands of miles distant from
King County.
The most significant documented risks are to port transportation and industrial facilities in the Seattle
waterfront and Magnolia. It is likely a tsunami would impact docks, harbors, and other water-dependent
facilities in communities such as Des Moines and Burien too. The consequences of a tsunami to the
Port of Seattle would likely be catastrophic, causing permanent to semi-permanent harm to the region’s
economy. As described in the earthquake chapter, damage from the Kobe, Japan earthquake in 1995 led
to a permanent reduction in the scale and importance of that port.
The table below summarizes the identified tsunami hazard area, the City of Seattle, following a
magnitude 7.3 Seattle fault earthquake. Approximately 0.6 percent of structures within the city are
exposed to a Seattle fault earthquake-induced tsunami, totaling an estimated value of $5.1 billion (3.5
percent of the total building value within the city). 116 The modeling to show potential impacts from a
Seattle fault tsunami or a Cascadia tsunami for the remaining communities in King County is not yet
complete.
City of Seattle Tsunami Exposure Assessment – Seattle Fault Scenario
STRUCTURES EXPOSED EXPOSED BUILDING AND CONTENT VALUE PERCENT OF EXPOSED VALUE
969 $5.1 Billion 3.5%
Geologic evidence of previous shallow crustal fault-induced tsunami events has been recorded in the
Puget Sound at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island and at West Point in Seattle.117 This evidence suggests
the last tsunami occurred around 900 AD when the local Seattle fault raised some landmasses around
116 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Tsunami Exposure Assessment. Page 58.
117 Moore, Andrew. Looking for paleotsunami evidence: an example from Cultus Bay, Washington. Accessed online on
6/11/19 from https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/workshops/risk_resilience/activities/82019.html .
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
177
the Puget Sound shoreline by as much as 26 feet. A scientific study focused on seismic activity on the
Seattle fault within the last 8,000 years found evidence for an additional earthquake that occurred
~6,900 years ago. This suggests a low probability of a large earthquake to occur on the Seattle fault as
the recurrence interval could be thousands of years. Since 900 AD, tsunami waves in King County have
been less than 18 inches in height and caused little damage to boats and shoreline property.118
Additional verbal accounts among the Snohomish Tribe reported by Colin Tweddell in 1953 described a
great landslide-induced wave caused by the collapse of Camano Head at the south end of Camano
Island around the 1820s.119 No injuries have been reported since the settlement of Seattle in the 18th
century. The value and density of property along the waterfront suggests a potential for moderate
impacts from such an event.
Multiple seiches have been generated in King County from various local and distant seismic events.
Seiche events in the King County have been noted in the following years: 1) In 1891 two earthquakes
near Port Angeles caused water in the Puget Sound to surge onto beaches two feet above the high-water
mark and an eight-foot seiche in Lake Washington. 2) In 1906 the magnitude 7.9 San Francisco
earthquake caused agitated wave activity on the west shore of Lake Washington “so violently that house
boats, floats and bathhouses were jammed and tossed about like leaves on the water,” reported by the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (4/19/1906). 3) In 1949, a magnitude-7.1 deep earthquake occurred in
Olympia that caused seiches within Lake Union and Lake Washington, but no damages were reported.
4) The magnitude 9.2 Great Alaska earthquake of 1964 created global seiches, including in Lake Union
that damaged houseboats, buckled moorings, and broke water and sewer lines. 5) In 1965, a magnitude
6.5 deep earthquake occurred in the Puget Sound which caused a seiche where water “sloshing back and
forth like soup in a shallow bowl” was observed at Green Lake, North Seattle (reported by the Seattle
Times, 4/30/1965). 6) Lastly, in 2002 a magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake caused seiches in Lake Union
that damaged houseboats, buckled moorings, and broke water and sewer lines.
Tsunamis generated along the Pacific Rim have a hard time reaching Puget Sound with any destructive
force. The tsunamis generated by the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan and the 1964 magnitude
9.2 earthquake in Alaska did reach Puget Sound, but the maximum wave height recorded was only 0.04
meters (~2 inches) and 0.12 meters, respectively in (~5 inches) in King County.
118 National Geophysical Data Center / World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): Global Historical Tsunami Database.
National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA. doi:10.7289/V5PN93H7 [accessed online on 09/11/2019 from
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=70&d=7]
119 Koshimura, Shunichi and Harold O. Mofjeld. 2001. Inundation modeling of local tsunamis in Puget Sound,
Washington due to potential earthquakes. ITS 2001 Proceedings, Session 7, Number 7 -18. Accessed online on 6/11/19
from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/docs/ITS2001/7-18_Koshimura.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
178
Tsunami Scenario Drivers120121
There are four likely triggers for a tsunami in King County. These include an earthquake on the Seattle
Fault, an earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a tsunami caused by a major landslide into
Puget Sound or another major body of water, and an earthquake on the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction
Zone.
Seattle Fault
Tsunami
A tsunami triggered by a rupture of the Seattle Fault would compound damage caused
by the initial earthquake. It would devastate low-lying areas of Puget Sound, but
especially the port and industrial facilities around the Port of Seattle and Magnolia.
Preliminary modeling suggests the first wave arrives within 2 and a half minutes after
the earthquake starts at the Magnolia Bluff area of Seattle and all coastlines within
Elliott Bay experience an average of 20 feet (6 meters) of inundation above Mean
High Water during the first 10 minutes. Harbor Island also experiences major flooding
with at least 13 feet (4 meters) of flow depth above the ground level. South of Elliott
Bay has milder flooding compared to Seattle, but strong currents are prevalent at
Portage Bay.
Cascadia
Subduction
Zone Tsunami
A Cascadia Subduction Zone tsunami would devastate the outer coast and seriously
impact low-lying areas around Everett and the San Juan Islands. The islands and the
strait of Juan de Fuca protect King County from the worst flooding impacts.
Preliminary modeling suggests that little inundation would occur along the coastline of
South King county, though some flooding may be expected in areas of Seattle SODO
and Port. The worst flooding is expected to occur at Portage Bay with estimated wave
amplitudes up to 13 feet (4 meters) above Mean High Water. Strong currents are also
estimated at Portage Bay near spits of land and in the narrows, which can be
hazardous to the maritime community. The first wave is expected to reach Seattle at
approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. Statewide, this tsunami is expected to cause
over 15,000 fatalities, primarily in coastal communities in the outer coast counties.
Landslide
Tsunami
Verbal accounts among the Snohomish Tribe reported by Colin Tweddell in 1953
describe a great landslide-induced wave caused by the collapse of Camano Head at the
south end of Camano Island around the 1820s. The slide itself is said to have buried a
small village, and the resulting tsunami drowned people who were clamming on Hat
120 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
121 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
179
(Gedney) Island, 2 miles to the south. Bathymetry between Camano Head and Hat
Island could have contributed to the size and destructive power of the wave.122
Alaska-Aleutian
Distant Source
Tsunami
An Alaskan-Aleutian subduction zone earthquake can be as large as a magnitude 9.2
event, as experienced in 1964. A tsunami generated from Alaska is a distant-sourced
tsunami for Washington state. The preliminary tsunami modeling results for a
potential worst-case scenario magnitude 9.2 Alaska earthquake to King County is
estimated to be somewhat similar to the Cascadia Subduction Zone event, but half as
strong. The highest wave amplitudes can be up to 7 feet (2 meters) and predicted to
occur inside Portage Bay, but not predicted to overtop the northern spit. Additionally,
it is probable for some unsafe currents for the maritime community to occur, with the
highest risk being at Portage Bay. The first wave is expected to reach Seattle’s coastline
approximately 6 hours after the earthquake.
Lake
Washington or
Lake
Sammamish
Seiche
A Seattle Fault earthquake could generate a seiche on Lake Washington that would
impact low-lying areas of cities along the lake, including Sammamish, Kenmore,
Kirkland, and others.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Port and harbor facilities Tsunamis are expected to devastate near-shore port infrastructure, boats, and
piers. This is the largest economic consequence of a tsunami.
Low-lying and waterfront
homes and businesses
Homes and businesses along the many waterfronts would be damaged or
destroyed by a mid-sized tsunami and devastated by a local crustal
earthquake and tsunami.
Wastewater treatment
facilities
West Point treatment plan is in the inundation zone for a Seattle Fault
tsunami. Historical records also suggest tsunamis have impacted this area
before.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
While it would take a rather sizable tsunami along the shoreline of King County,
precautionary evacuations from houseboats, live aboard pleasure craft, cruise ships, and
property immediately adjacent to waterfronts of Puget Sound and lakes Washington,
Sammamish, and lake Union may be recommended.
122 Koshimura, Shunichi and Harold O. Mofjeld. 2001. Inundation modeling of local tsunamis in Puget Sound,
Washington due to potential earthquakes. ITS 2001 Proceedings, Session 7, Number 7 -18. Accessed online on 6/11/19
from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/docs/ITS2001/7-18_Koshimura.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
180
Vulnerable
populations
There are no additional anticipated direct impacts from tsunami to vulnerable
populations. As always, any disruption to services, the economy, and infrastructure would
cause more harm to lower-income and marginalized communities.
Property Tsunami and seiche threats were not defined until recently. Most of the early 19th and
20th century structures located near the water were probably not engineered to withstand
impacts from a tsunami, seiche, or earthquake. The properties along the entire Seattle
Waterfront and those in Shoreline, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Vashon Island are at
risk from tsunami activity.
The economy A tsunami or seiche that impacts port facilities, such as one triggered by the Seattle Fault
would have any sizable impact on the economy of the region. Damage would run
potentially in the billions and have far-reaching consequences for Washington’s export-
based economy.
The
environment
It is possible for a tsunami or seiche to have an impact on the natural environment
immediately adjacent to Puget Sound through the release of fuels and hazardous materials
or their storage facilities around the waterfront. This may include fish habitat or natural
and farmed shellfish beds, wetlands, estuaries, and marsh areas.
Health
systems There are no major health centers located in the mapped tsunami inundation areas.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
It is possible that Sounder traffic between Everett and Seattle or Tacoma and Seattle
could be impacted by any large tsunami in Puget Sound. Otherwise, it is unlikely that
King County governmental operations would be directly impacted by a tsunami or seiche.
Responders Along the shoreline of King County, precautionary evacuations from houseboats, live
aboard pleasure crafts, cruise ships, and property immediately adjacent to waterfronts of
Puget Sound and lakes Washington, Sammamish, and Lake Union would cause impacts
to the public. The volume of search and rescue efforts along waterfronts affected from
the tsunami may pose potential issues to first responders (police, fire, EMS).There are
only small number of scenarios where this is a likely issue.
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Little to no impact directly from tsunami is expected.
• Water/Wastewater: Tsunami may impact the West Point treatment plant. The
damage would depend on the height of the tsunami and a significant event would
be required. If such an event were to occur, the plan would be rendered
inoperable.
• Transportation: damage to port facilities and ferry terminals are the primary
threat to infrastructure from a tsunami. Even relatively small tsunami surges, such
as the aforementioned example from Crescent City, have caused tens of millions
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
181
of dollars. Damage to low-lying rail and roads is also likely, but less of a concern
since it would not impact primary transportation routes.
• Communications: There is limited risk to communications systems as a whole
from tsunami.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Coverage from major news outlets, including the Seattle Times and the New Yorker
magazine, have argued that Washington is highly underprepared for a major seismic event
large enough to generate a tsunami. Both media coverage and reports from state
emergency management has led Washington’s governor to convene a Resilient
Washington Subcommittee to look into mitigation actions out of concern for the
apparent low-level of public confidence in state and local ability to manage major
disasters. Data is available from Japan and New Zealand that clearly demonstrate that
policy level decisions and direct communication to the public will greatly influence the
public confidence in King County government.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
182
Regional Risk Profile: Volcano
Hazard Description
Volcanic eruptions are the result of geological activity, and may include lava, rock fragments, gases, and
ash ejected from a vent on the surface. Deposits of rock, lava, and ash create the structures we call
volcanoes. Washington State has five active volcanoes, four of which have been classified as “Very
high” threat by the U.S. Geological Survey, and one considered “High” threat. Mount Rainier would
cause the most significant local disruptions in the event of an eruption, but any of them could cause
major disruptions due to ash or impacts on the transportation system.
Volcanoes can lie dormant for hundreds or thousands of years between eruptions. Hazards from
eruptions are typically divided into near-volcano hazards, those which impact areas immediately on the
slopes of the volcano, and distant hazards, which can put areas miles away from the volcano at risk.
Near-volcano hazards include pyroclastic flows (hot avalanches of gas, ash, and rock fragments), lava
flows, rock (tephra), debris flows, and landslides. Distant hazards, include Lahars – volcanic mudflows,
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
183
and volcanic ash. Lahars may travel tens of miles down river valleys, picking up debris and inundating
floodplains, and leave a cement-like deposit of sediment where they stop. They are a hazard at all five of
Washington’s volcanoes, and the only personal protective action available to avoid a lahar is evacuation
to higher ground. Volcanic ash – made up of tiny particles of glass – may be extremely widespread, as it
travels in the direction of the wind. The fine particles may travel hundreds of miles or more downwind.
Even in tiny quantities, volcanic ash can be very disruptive, as it lowers air quality, makes roads slippery
to drive on, is abrasive, poses risks to aircraft, motor vehicles and electronics, and is extremely difficult
to clean up, as it easily remobilizes into the air. Volcanic ash is also dense, and quite heavy when wet – 4
inches of wet volcanic ash is heavy enough to collapse most roofs.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
There are multiple hazards from a volcano, including lahars that could impact communities in the south
of the county to ash that could impact the entire region and come from any of Washington’s five active
volcanoes.
Lahars, mudflows that can have the consistency of wet cement, are historically the most damaging
element of a volcanic eruption. These flows pick up large and small debris like trees, houses, boulders –
anything in its path. Lahars can move 20-40 miles per hour down slopes. They slow down once they
reach floodplains, but are still an unstoppable mass of mud and debris, often pushing a flow of water
ahead of it. While the lahar risk to King County is limited to a major eruption of Mt. Rainier and
impacts primarily the cities of Algona, Pacific, and Auburn, the regional impacts would include a
complete disruption of regional transportation routes, including through airport closures, damage to I-5,
and damage to the Port of Tacoma.
The best examples of potential local damages from volcanic activity are from the Mt. St. Helens
eruption in 1980. This eruption had significant ash-fall over eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Montana, with trace amounts falling over the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, and
Minnesota as well as Canadian provinces. A long history of volcanic eruptions in the cascades is
recorded by the Native Americans in the area. Volcanic activity occurs in geological timelines these
events are spaced over hundreds if not thousands of years, during which time the number of exposed
inhabitants and inventory of infrastructure has changed greatly. Even the difference between 1980 and
today (39 years) has seen a marked increase in population and infrastructure in the possible impact area
for volcanic activity. The Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 damaged or destroyed 200 buildings, ruined 44
bridges, and buried 17 miles of railway along with 125 miles of roadway. Community water supplies and
sewer systems were disabled and reservoirs partly filled with silt and debris.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
184
Mt. Rainier, however, is much closer (60 miles to Seattle) and poses a much more direct threat. Modern
Mount Rainier started erupting 500,000 years ago and has had numerous eruptions and mudflows since
then. About 5,600 years ago, an eruption created a massive debris avalanche, called the Osceola
Mudflow, poured down from the summit of Mount Rainier, picking up sediment and anything else in its
path as it traveled down the White River valley and into the Puget Sound. The mudflow filled valleys
with up to ~400 feet of sediment and moved at speeds of 40 to 50 miles an hour. Following the Osceola
Mudflow, many smaller volcanic eruptions and lahars occurred as the volcano continued to show signs
of unrest. The most recent major mudflow, called the Electron Mudflow, began as a part of a crater
collapse and traveled
down the Puyallup River
into Sumner in ~1502. It
is estimated that Mount
Rainier has generated
about 60 of these lahars in
the last 10,000 years, with
about 10 large enough to reach the Puget Sound. Many communities, including Orting, Puyallup, and
Auburn, between Mount Rainier and the Puget Sound are built on top of these deposits. 123
An eruption of Mt. Rainier, or any other Cascade volcano, is likely to be preceded by warning signs,
such as series of earthquakes, and deformation of the volcano. This volcanic “unrest” may last for days
before an eruption, or possibly for weeks, to months, to years or more. Monitoring networks are in
place to provide advanced warning. This advance warning is critical to communities downstream from
the volcanoes, because Even a relatively small eruption could melt glaciers significantly, generating
lahars that will reach heavily populated areas.124
A lahar should not be seen as a singular event, but a mass movement of sediment requiring significant
time to recover from. Deposition of feet to tens of feet of sediment through a watershed and over a
floodplain creates long-term changes to the river environment. After a lahar, mitigation measures may
be necessary to prevent continued sedimentation over the decades following the eruption, such as the
sediment retention structure built following the Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption. In lieu of this solution,
dredging may be required to prevent shipping channels from filling with sediment. Deposition of a large
amount of sediment within a floodplain may also change floodplains to a point where floods now occur
in areas which were previously safe from flooding.
123 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Volcano Risk Assessment, page
470-472.
124 United States Geologic Survey. 2018. USGS Volcano Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/12/19 from
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mount_rainier/geo_hist_future_eruptions.html.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
185
Summary of Hazard Effects
Major types of volcanic hazard, their effects and extents are listed in the table below. The occurrence
and scale of volcanic hazards are inversely related, with small events occurring more frequently (10-20 a
month), and larger events occurring every hundred years or so.125
Hazard Threat to Life Threat to Property Areas Affected
Ash and tephra fall
Low except near vent;
high for aviation
Depends on size of
particles and amount of
ash; can
lead to roof collapse,
bomb damage, fire
Local, Regional,
National, International
Pyroclastic flows
Very high – Near vent and
on slopes; low in King
County
Very high Local, Regional, National,
Lava flows
Low except near vent. Very High Local
Lahars High to moderate High Local, Regional
Flooding (post-lahar) Moderate High Regional
Gases/acid rain Low to moderate Moderate Local, Regional
Priority Vulnerabilities126
Communities in the path
of lahar hazards
Communities in the vicinity of Rainier, including the King County
communities of Algona, Pacific, and Auburn, are most vulnerable from a
large lahar generated by an eruption of Mt. Rainier.
Populations vulnerable to
respiratory distress
brought on by ash
Ash from any volcanic eruption can lead to disruption of daily life and is a
major threat to people with medical vulnerabilities.
125 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Volcano Risk Assessment, page
463
126 Clark County Emergency Management. 2007. 2006 Volcanic Ashfall Exercise After Action Report / Impr ovement
Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
186
Populations in the
immediate vicinity of a
volcano
Populations that use Mt. Rainier National Park or work in the area around
the mountain are most susceptible to the immediate impacts. Although
advanced warning is likely, it will be impossible to predict the exact moment
of eruption. Residents from the town of Orting have approximately 45-
minutes to evacuate following activation of their lahar sirens.
Roof collapse caused by
ash fall Buildings can collapse following large ash accumulation.
Electrical systems and the
energy sector
Electrical systems may short out due to ashfall and power generation can be
curtailed as generation systems are shut off to protect sensitive components.
Communications
equipment
Communications equipment has the same vulnerability as general electrical
systems and is subject to failure due to ash damage.
Air travel Airports would likely be closed for the duration of major ash dispersal.
Roads and transportation
systems
Traffic signals would likely short out during ashfall. Ash is also creates a very
slippery driving surface. Ash can also damage vehicle engines, and scratch
windshields when wipers are being used – Driving is not recommended
during heavy ashfall.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Cities in the south of the county, including Algona, Pacific, Auburn, and Kent all may be
impacted by a lahar. The sedimentation zone spreads throughout the Green River Valley.
This area includes some of the largest and fastest-growing cities in the county. The
distance from Mt. Rainier makes direct impact of eruption from a pyroclastic event
extremely unlikely. Prevailing winds make ash fall in the county unlikely or at least minor.
Lava flows and landslide activity would impact Pierce County but are unlikely to reach
any portion of inhabited King County. Indirect impacts from a major eruption might
include a cooling climate from atmospheric suspended ash clouds but this too is unlikely.
Fine ash may cause regional health impacts – especially respiratory for the duration of ash
fall. Impact to vehicles and air handling systems in homes and work places may have an
employment impact to the King County population.
Vulnerable
populations
Impacts to individuals with access and functional needs will be extremely serious.
Transportation will be impacted, resulting in difficulty accessing appointments.
Individuals with chronic respiratory vulnerabilities will be most negatively impacted by
ash. While there are limited numbers of King County residents in the path of the lahar,
the communities that are most impacted have higher rates of disability and poverty than
the statewide average.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
187
Property The cities of Algona and Pacific are the most at risk from a Mt. Rainier lahar event, with
over 90 percent of their structures exposed to the lahar. While the percentage of
structures is not as high, the City of Auburn has the highest potential dollar-value losses.
Other damages would include the loss of HVAC and air filtration systems, electrical
systems shorting out, and the danger of roof collapse from ash accumulation since ash is
heavier than snow. Furthermore, following rains, ash hardens to a concrete-like
consistency, which can clog gutters and drains and cause them to fail or collapse.
Businesses that operate electronic systems will require decontamination rooms to prevent
ash from getting inside and damaging electrical equipment.
The economy Many of the impacts from a Mt. Rainier eruption to humans and the environment would
also impact the economy of King County. Aviation interruption would likely occur from
airborne ash. A lahar event would impact rail and port service from direct damages to
infrastructure like bridges, rails, and roadways, or from inaccessibility to ports. Ash would
cause interruption of all internal combustion engines or vehicles that require filters would
impact the workforce and movement of food and supplies as well as repair crews.
Abrasion from fine ash on all mechanical parts would cause longer term damages to
industrial operations and the ports. Health and respiratory issues would make both indoor
and outdoor professions difficult. Medical facilities and the patients that rely on them
would have difficulty operating. The cost of debris removal following a lahar would be
enormous, even similar to efforts from a major earthquake.
The
environment
Any significant volcanic activity on Mt. Rainier would have an impact to the environment.
Lava flows, tephra, ash, and lahar activity would directly impact birds, fish, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, trees, and vegetation. Sediment deposition would impact rivers that
support salmon and steelhead spawning. Debris and lahar may change the course of
rivers entirely. Lahars may cause hazardous materials releases that harm birds, fish and
other wildlife. Recreational use of ski areas and hiking trails would also be impacted. It
has been four decades, and Mt. St. Helens timber and wildlife have not yet returned to
pre-1980 levels.
Health
systems
Health systems would be impacted by an expected dramatic rise in demand for services as
ash causes people to seek care for respiratory distress. Health systems would also be
hindered by transportation system impacts. First responder vehicles should have air filters
changed every 35 miles during volcano ash events and there are not enough air filters on
hand to meet this requirement.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Potential impacts to county delivery of services from a Mt. Rainier eruption would be the
result of damages to infrastructure, equipment including machinery and vehicles,
inaccessibility to service areas, impedance to transportation routes used by the county
workforce, and health impacts to residents and the workforce. County services that might
be interrupted might include: Medic One response, King County Sheriff’s Office services
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
188
like 9-1-1 dispatch, search and rescue and marine or aviation unit response, adult
detention, solid waste and waste water services. Services provided by other government
agencies and basic service providers might include interruption of: power, phone and cell
phone service, emergency medical service, fire and law enforcement, water systems, and
health/medical facilities.
Responders Responder vehicles need regular air filter changes during ashfall. Air filters in the quantity
required are likely not available. Responders will also be taxed by high numbers of calls
and dangerous roads caused by slick ash.
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Ash can short out electrical systems and cause widespread power failure.
Ash accumulation may also cause issues with power generation dams. Generation
facilities may be shut down to prevent damage to sensitive components.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems, including reservoirs, could quickly clog with
ash, potentially polluting water supply.
• Transportation: volcanic ash is very slick and roadways would become
treacherous. Vehicles would need regular air filter replacements and there are not
sufficient air filters in the region to offset the need. Airports in the region would
have to close, potentially for months. Any lahar could potentially destroy major
transportation routes, including I-5. Traffic signal systems and communications
systems could short out due to ashfall.127
• Communications: Electrical and communication impact can be severely impacted
during ashfall. Ash getting into electrical systems can cause systems to short out.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption revealed that even heavy monitoring of a volcano,
while effective, cannot predict exactly how the volcano will behave. Since that time,
investments and public information have created confidence that USGS and local
emergency management is capable of providing public warnings and evacuations in time
to save lives. Continued investment in risk assessment and warning systems, for example,
around Orting, WA, continue to build public confidence. An event could either
undermine or strengthen this confidence, depending on losses and the speed of warning.
A potential public confidence issue is from false positives that trigger evacuations. There
have been numerous cases outside of the US where communities are evacuated, only for
the volcano not to erupt at that time. Communities can become inured to warnings.
When this happens, and an event does occur, there are much higher losses. A false alert is
unlikely in the USGS monitoring system for Mt. Rainier as the danger of a false alert has
been a central consideration in the design of the system.
127 Clark County Emergency Management. 2007. 2006 Volcanic Ashfall Exercise After Action Report / Improvement
Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
189
A period of unrest, leading to heightened monitoring and public awareness could last days
or years before anything (or nothing) happens. Sharing information with the public on the
uncertainty of volcanoes and the potential for long-term monitoring is important.
Additionally, in the event of unrest and a potential lahar, the local jurisdiction are the only
ones who can actually order the evacuation and so much be prepared to assess risk,
inform the public, and act when needed.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
190
Regional Risk Profile: Wildfire
Hazard Description
King County and Western Washington in general have historically been at a low risk from major
wildland and wildland-urban interface fires. The historic return period for the heavily forested areas of
the slopes of the Cascades in eastern King County is between 200 and 300 years. Western Washington
fires are not unheard of, however – in 1902, dozens of wildfires burned nearly 239,000 acres in what is
now the Yacolt Burn State Forest, causing 38 deaths. This
occurred after an extended period of hot, dry weather, high
wind, and an over-accumulation of timber harvest slash.128
Climate change is shortening this interval, though it is still
unknown by how much. By 2040, a four-fold increase in the
annual area burned by fires in Washington is projected.129 Of a
more immediate concern is the amount of new development
in areas close to the wildland-urban interface. This new
exposure is the primary driver of risk in the short and medium
term.
Wildfires can occur when the necessary combination of
weather (low humidity, low precipitation, high temperatures, high wind), topography (steeper slopes,
gulches, canyons, and ridges), and fuel (higher amounts, higher concentration, continuous across the
landscape, low in moisture) are brought together with an ignition source (lightening or human-caused).
In the western United States, we have seen an increase in large wildfires due to more than a century of
fire prevention efforts, rising temperatures, declining forest health, and increased development.
Wildfires can spread quickly when burning in areas with dense, dry, uninterrupted fuels. This is
particularly true in areas with steep slopes and ridges and in windy weather with high temperatures and
low humidity. This mix of requirements has meant that there have been very few serious fires in King
County.
The wildland fire season in Washington usually runs from July through September. Drought, low snow
pack, and local weather conditions can lengthen the fire season. Many of the worst fire years on record
have occurred in the past decade. Suppression costs alone cost $60 million for the Carlton Complex fire.
Economic costs were estimated at $98 million for that fire.130
128 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Yacolt Burn State Forest website. Accessed online on 6/19/19
from https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Yacolt.
129 King County. 2018. King County Strategic Climate Action Plan 2018 Biennial Report.
130 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
191
Washington State Department of Natural Resources lays out the scale of the problem in the new, 10-
year strategic plan.131 “In 2018, wildland fires burned more than 350,000 acres in Washington state and
cost more than $112 million dollars to suppress—all before the end of August….Yet, 2018 was not the
state’s worst for fire. In recent years, hotter, drier summers and longer fire seasons have led to a trend in
increased fire starts and area burned. Fires in 2014 and 2015 burned approximately 425,300 and
1,064,100 acres and cost state and federal agencies nearly $182 million and $345 million in firefighting
expenses, respectively. In addition to the significant structural and economic losses, three firefighter
lives were lost in 2015.”
The largest fires in Washington State are usually sparked by lightning in wilderness areas. Small fires
(often ignited due to human activity) can also be damaging, however. For example, a small 400-acre fire
in Thurston County in 2017 led to the evacuation of nearly 100 homes and the loss of four homes.
Human-caused ignition sources may include chains dragging behind trucks, cigarettes, arson, or the loss
of control of fires set for recreational purposes.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources is leading an effort including King County to
complete a statewide map of all wildland-urban interface areas. Once the mapping is complete, RCW
19.27.560 will take effect, adopting the ICC’s 2018 International WUI Code. The following map is a
draft map developed using United States Forest Service land cover data and King County parcel data.
Interface areas are at the boundary of urban and vegetated areas. Intermix areas are areas where
structures and vegetation are mingled.
131 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Washington State Wildland Fire Protection 10 -Year
Strategic Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_wildfire_strategic_plan.pdf?ivvzxs.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
192
Draft Wildland-Urban Interface Areas: red = interface/intermix areas with high structure density (Source: DNR WUI
Mapping Program, 2018)
Wildfire hazards include the fire itself, but also smoke and post-wildfire erosion and flooding. Wildfire
smoke is made up of particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other harmful pollutants from burning
trees, plant materials, and combustion of plastics and other chemicals released from burning structures
and furnishings. Exposure to fine particulate matter (2.5 micrometers and smaller) is a significant health
concern, because the small size of the particle allows people to inhale it deep in the lungs where the
particles can directly enter the blood stream. The effects of smoke exposure range from eye and
respiratory tract irritation to more serious health problems including reduced lung function, bronchitis,
and exacerbation of asthma, heart failure, and premature death. People with existing heart and lung
diseases, older adults, children and pregnant women are especially at risk of smoke-related health
problems.132
Post-wildfire flooding, landslides, and mudslides is a deadly secondary hazard to extreme wildfires in
areas with steep slopes. Soils in areas burned by fire not only lose their stabilizing vegetation but can
also become hydrophobic (water repelling), leading to massive water runoff that carries debris down
slopes and into nearby waterways. In Montecito, CA more than 17 people died, 100 homes were
destroyed, and hundreds of people were rescued from a series of mudslides and mudflows that hit
following heavy rains that drenched areas burned over earlier that summer.133 Mudslides were a serious
MAP SUBJECT TO CHANGE
BASED ON CONTINUED
WORK BY WA DNR
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
193
threat in Eastern Washington following the 2014 and 2015 wildfires, and destroyed irrigation systems,
roads, and bridges.
One aspect of post-fire flooding is that it can be predicted. King County would likely have weeks to
months to prepare and plan for flooding events resulting from a major fire. The Department of Ecology
maintains a post-fire flooding calculator to estimate runoff and prepare communities for flooding. In
Montecito, for example, emergency managers had already evacuated thousands of people and it was
those who chose to not heed the warnings that were most likely to be impacted by the mudslides.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County communities are rarely threatened by major wildfires, though roadside brush fires can still
threaten even the most urbanized areas.134135 This has meant that land use and building codes in King
County are not adapted to current and future wildfire risk. As the climate changes, there is a greater
likelihood that high temperature and dry conditions will be present along with the already-existing
topographic, wind, and fuel conditions necessary to support a large fire
Smoke has received the bulk of recent attention in King County due to multiple years of wildfire smoke
in the Puget Sound region from wildfires in British Columbia, Oregon, and Eastern Washington. Air
quality deteriorated to hazardous conditions in some parts of King County in 2017 and 2018. Recent
studies of wildfire smoke exposure in Washington found a significant relationship between exposure to
PM2.5 from wildfire smoke and an increase in emergency room and outpatient visits for asthma.
Especially impacted were those with pediatric asthma and other childhood respiratory and chest
symptoms, as well as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease across all age groups, and all respiratory
outcomes.136 Smoke will likely be an ongoing concern for the region and may represent a “new normal”
though it will not occur every year.
Post-fire flooding is a serious threat to King County. A fire in one of the foothills communities could
cause major mudflows and devastating flooding in communities in the watershed impacted by the fire
and through which rivers and creeks pass. Communities with existing flood risk, such as along the
Snoqualmie River, are especially vulnerable. Damage to homes caused by debris flows is typically not
covered by regular homeowner’s insurance.
132 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
133 Queally, James, Etehad, Melissa, and Brittny Mejia. Jan 10, 2018. Death toll rises to 17 in Montecito; 100 homes
destroyed by mudslides. The Las Angeles Times. Accessed online on 6/18/19 from
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-montecito-storm-mudflow-20180110-htmlstory.html.
134 Headwater Economics. 2018. Communities Across the US Are Experiencing Threats from Wildfires. Accessed online
on 6/18/19 from https://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/communities-wildfire-threat/.
135 KIRO 7 News Staff. July 27, 2011. Brush fires shut down portion of SR 509. KIRO 7. Accessed online on 8/27/19
from https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/brush-fires-shut-down-portion-of-sr-509/970676697.
136 For more information, see Washington State Department of Health/Chelan-Douglas, Grant, Kittitas and Okanogan
Counties (2015), Surveillance Investigation of the Cardiopulmonary Health Effects of the 2 012 Wildfires in North
Central Washington State; Gan, R. W., B. Ford, W. Lassman, G. Pfister, A. Vaidyanathan, E. Fischer, J. Volckens, J. R.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
194
Scenario Drivers137138
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire
Although fires are currently rare in Western
Washington, they are not unheard of and are expected
to increase as climate change leads to warmer
temperatures. Prolonged summer heat, combined with
high density forests and areas of poor forest health, is
increasing fire risk at the same time that people are
building more and more into the wildland-urban
interface. The building patterns in these areas are not in
accordance with FireWise principles and many
communities have limited ingress and egress routes.
Smoke
Source: Greg Gilbert, Seattle Times
In 2017, and especially 2018, smoke from wildfires
inundated Seattle, causing unhealthy air quality. This
was due to wind patterns that blew smoke from fires in
British Columbia, Oregon, and Eastern Washington.
Warmer summers will increase the number of fires and
with more fires, more smoky days are likely.139
137 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
138 Washington State Geologic Survey. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/7/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides#types-of-landslides.8
139 Gilbert, Greg. August 14, 2018. Smoky Seattle summers: expect more of them, scientists say. The Seattle Times.
Accessed online on 6/19/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/smoky-seattle-summers-expect-more-of-
them-scientists-say/.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
195
Post-fire flooding and debris flows
Wildfires burn vegetation on steep slopes, not only
destabilizing the slopes but also making the soil
hydrophobic in high-intensity fires. This can lead to
large debris flows and mudslides when heavy rains
occur that damage infrastructure and communities
downstream for several years after a fire. USGS can
conduct assessments on burned areas to determine the
likelihood of major debris flows from a burned area.140
Priority Vulnerabilities
Structures built in
interface or intermix areas
Structures built in interface or intermix areas are more susceptible to fires,
including from spotting and embers ahead of a fire. This is especially true for
buildings with less than 100 feet of defensible space.
Foothills and interface
communities
Communities in or around areas at a higher risk of fire, such as those in the
foothills of the Cascades, are more susceptible to fire.
Communities in or near
the floodplain,
downstream of potential
burn areas
Major wildfires can cause the soil to become hydrophobic. When rains come,
large quantities of water and debris and rush down hillsides and destroy
homes and infrastructure while causing flooding in downstream
communities.
Communities built
without multiple ingress
and egress routes
Communities with a single ingress and egress route are much more difficult
to protect and evacuate. Roads that are less than 24 feet wide, especially
those less than 20 feet wide, and those driveways without a turnaround are
highest risk.
Buildings built with
flammable materials and
with vegetation close to
the structure
Buildings not meeting FireWise principles, including defensible space, are
most at risk to wildfire. This includes proximity of dense brush or timber,
flammable composition of structure roof, and siding.
Communities on slopes or
hills
Fires tend to burn up slopes and ridges, endangering structures in those
areas. Buildings less than 30 feet from a slope of greater than 30% grade are
most vulnerable.
140 USGS. 2018. Miriam Fire Preliminary Hazard Assessment. Accessed online on 6/19/19 from
https://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/postfire_debrisflow/detail.php?objectid=224 .
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
196
Areas with more frequent
severe fire weather days
and winds
Fire weather, including low humidity and wind, is a major predictor for when
ignitions, which are common, will spread and become a major fire. Areas
prone to this weather are expected to expand due to climate change.
Areas greater than five
miles from a fire station
and with limited water
source availability
Buildings more than five miles away from fire services and with limited
pressurized fire hydrant access are more vulnerable.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
King County residents are most likely to experience fire impacts from smoke. Smoke can
cause respiratory issues and prevent people from taking part in outdoor activities. There
are limited populations exposed to wildfire hazard in interface areas, though this risk is
growing due to climate change and new development.
Vulnerable
populations
Populations suffering from respiratory ailments are at the greatest risk from wildfire since
smoke from fire. People with existing heart and lung diseases, older adults, children and
pregnant women are especially at risk of smoke-related health problems.
Property The level of exposure of property and potential impacts to property from wildfire is not
yet known in detail. The communities with the highest levels of exposure include
Snoqualmie, North Bend, and unincorporated areas of the county in the foothills of the
Cascades. King County is working on a better estimate of overall risk to property and will
update this plan with that information when it is available. Likely impacts to property
include smoke damage to total loss of facilities. Communities built with many homes
close together and constructed of flammable materials can be completely burned in a
short time, as seen in Fort McMurray, Canada, Paradise California, and Santa Rosa,
California.
The economy At present, there is relatively little economic impact from wildfires in most of King
County. The fires are predominately a risk in the more rural parts of the county. There is
some impact from smoke and fire to transportation systems; however, it is likely to be
limited and temporary. The largest impacts are likely to be indirect, including losses in
work days because of poor air quality, loss of capital required for suppression efforts,
interrupted access, and losses in tourist income.
The
environment
While fires are often beneficial to the landscape when regular and not intense, a major
wildfire can be damaging in the near term. Fires can pollute water systems and destroy
old growth habitat. They can burn over springs and increase evaporation. Following
extreme fires, hydrophobic soils make it difficult for plants to regrow in and the runoff
over these soils increases the turbidity of local streams, endangering fish and other water
animal populations.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
197
Health
systems
Exposure to fine particulate matter (parts per million 2.5) is a significant health concern,
because the small size of the particle allows people to inhale it deep in the lungs where
the particles can directly enter the blood stream. The effects of smoke exposure range
from eye and respiratory tract irritation to more serious health problems including
reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma and heart failure, and
premature death.141 During extreme smoke pollution events, public health systems are
likely to be overburdened by populations suffering respiratory distress.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Most King County operations and facilities are in the more urban areas of the county and
unlikely to be directly impacted by wildfires. Smoke, however, can cause an increase in
employee absenteeism as employees may need to stay home to avoid smoke exposure.
Another risk is that a wildfire might occupy most of the region’s firefighting capabilities,
leaving less capability to continue regular structure fire and emergency medical missions.
Responders Growing numbers of wildfires will increase risk to firefighters. Firefighters in the Puget
Sound mostly respond to structure fires. With an increase in wildland or WUI fires,
firefighting becomes more complex and dangerous. Also, communities without proper
ingress/egress routes further increase risk to firefighters who may be called upon to
attempt evacuations in such communities. According to the Washington State Enhanced
Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are less than five first responder facilities exposed to
wildfire.142
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Washington’s transmission lines run through wildland areas. Wildfires in
King County could damage or destroy these systems, although brush is usually
kept clear of the largest transmission facilities. Rural and other interface power
lines would be burned in any fire, as has been seen in numerous communities in
Eastern Washington. Utilities in California are increasingly powering down
transmission systems during “red flag” fire conditions, affecting energy
customers.
• Water/Wastewater: Many water reservoirs are in forested areas and could be
impacted by wildfire that may burn power supplies to pump stations or the pump
stations themselves. Furthermore, post-fire flooding could damage or pollute
reservoirs.
• Transportation: Fire can cause road closures due to visibility concerns. A greater
risk, however, is post-fire flooding and debris flows that can damage or destroy
roads and bridges downstream or downslope from a burned area after a rain.
Additionally, SeaTac Airport was forced to cancel flights in 2018 due to poor
visibility during smoke events.
141 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
142 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Wildfire Risk
Assessment. Page 533.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
198
• Communications: Cellular communications sites can lose power or be damaged
by wildfire. During these events, it may be necessary to deploy cellular on wheels
capabilities.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Wildfire hazards have gained renewed importance in recent years due to the smoke
problems of 2017 and 2018. Numerous articles in the Seattle Times and other media
describe a “new normal” of smoke and fire danger in the Northwest. State and local
jurisdictions have been working to prepare public information messaging due to health
concerns and public interest. Government will need to be proactive in managing this
hazard in order to maintain public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
199
Hazard Mitigation Strategies
The primary focus of this plan update was the development of comprehensive, operationally viable
hazard mitigation strategies and the establishment of a capability to supervise and promote their
implementation. Plan strategies were developed using the following structure:
Hazard mitigation strategies were developed by each participating jurisdiction, supported by a series of
workshops, described in the planning partner engagement section of the introduction. The workshops
were hosted by King County Emergency Management and included state and FEMA staff associated
with the RiskMAP program.
The half-day workshop series took participants from developing risk problem statements (December
2018), through identifying community assets and strategies to protect those assets (July 2019), to funding
projects (August 2019). Using problem statements developed in the first workshop, participants
identified assets and then developed strategies that could protect their assets in workshop 2. Participants
were also guided through a strategy prioritization exercise using the King County method described
below. They left the second workshop with a list of strategies drafted and prioritized. For the third
workshop, participants learned about potential funding sources and how to seek funding for high-
priority strategies and eligible projects that they could not fund internally.
For those unable to attend workshops in-person, the planning team provided handouts and met in-
person over through Skype to walk jurisdictions through the same process. Unless indicated otherwise,
this is the method planning partners used to develop and prioritize hazard mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Plan Goals
Mitigation Plan
Strategies
Mitigation Projects
•These match the 14
Determinants of Equity,
from King County's Equity
and Social Justice Program
•Support community
resilience.
•These are broad approaches
to address a problem and
support the Plan goals.
•These may live on from
plan to plan.
•These are the specific
actions to be taken in
support of the Plan
Strategies.
•These are on either a 2 year
or 5 year timeline.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
200
Each planning partner also convened those internal stakeholders who were responsible for projects or
programs that supported or implemented mitigation along with those stakeholders with funding available
or funding needs. In King County, the primary hazard mitigation agencies include:
• Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Water and Land Resources
• Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Wastewater Treatment
• Department of Local Services – Permitting
• Department of Local Services – Roads
• King County Information Technology
• Department of Executive Services - King County International Airport
• Department of Executive Services – Facilities Management Division
• Public Health Seattle – King County
The planning team met with each department individually, with each developing and submitting a list of
potential hazard mitigation strategies and projects.
Departments attended the July Mitigation Strategy Workshop and August Mitigation Funding Workshop
along with the local jurisdiction partners.
Mitigation Plan Goals:
Goals are broad policy statements of the community’s vision for the future. They help describe the
contribution each strategy makes toward major objectives that reach beyond any individual department
or discipline. In alignment of this and with the Plan’s purpose, King County’s Regional Hazard
Mitigation Steering Committee adopted King County’s Determinants of Equity143 as Mitigation Plan
Goals:
Mitigation Plan Goals - 14 Determinants of Equity
1. Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2. Access to Health and Human Services
3. Access to Parks and Natural Resources
4. Access to Safe and Efficient Transportation
5. Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6. Community and Public Safety
7. Early Childhood Development
8. Economic Development
9. Equitable Law and Justice System
10. Equity in Government Practices
11. Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12. Healthy Built and Natural Environments
13. Quality Education
143 Office of the King County Executive. 2016. Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan. Accessed online on 7/24/19
from https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/strategic-plan.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
201
14. Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
Supplemental Goals:
15. Resilient and safe high and significant-hazard dams
16. Proactive and innovative floodplain management to reduce Repetitive Loss and Severe
Repetitive Loss properties
Mitigation strategies will be categorized according to these 16 factors.
Mitigation Plan Strategies
Mitigation Plan Strategies will be developed based on threats to essential assets and capabilities from
hazards within cities and unincorporated areas of King County. In the past these have included strategies
for risks such as land movement and flood impacts and projects such as bridge seismic retrofits and
generators for critical facilities. For this plan, hazard mitigation strategies are sets of coordinated actions
that, taken together, address a risk or vulnerability. They are comprehensive, long-term, and designed to
be regularly updated as actions are completed.
The updated strategy format will be used going forward in order to better support long-term tracking of
mitigation actions and strategies. The updated strategy template is displayed below.
Lead Points of
Contact (Title)
Partner Points of Contact (Title)
Who else outside your jurisdiction benefits
from the strategy or will help implement the
strategy?
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
Funding Sources
and Estimated
Costs
Strategy Vision/Objective
Long-term objective and vision for the strategy
Mitigation Strategy
Describe the program/proposed program
2-Year Objectives 5-Year Objectives Long-Term Objectives
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
202
Implementation Plan/Actions
This can provide a timeline, indicate partners, discuss implementation stages, etc. Use this to discuss how the
strategy/program will be implemented over the long term.
Performance Measures
This template will be built into a database where strategies can be entered, updated, and projects can be
prioritized consistently and effectively. The goal is for strategies to remain in place through future plan
updates, while implementation plan actions are changed.
Mitigation Plan Projects
Mitigation Plan Projects represent the specific work to be done and actions to be taken to mitigate a risk
or hazard. Candidate projects will be developed and considered for and by each participating jurisdiction,
with a process to engage the public in the prioritization of projects. Projects will be prioritized using the
scoring method established by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment with the Plan Strategies and
Goals and in keeping with the following values:
➢ Equity, Social Justice, and Vulnerability
➢ Collaborative
➢ Adaptation and Sustainability
➢ Multiple-Benefit
➢ Effectiveness
➢ Urgent
➢ Shovel-Ready
Prioritizing Hazard Mitigation Projects
King County developed a prioritization process based on criteria taken from national best practices144
and priorities identified by the King County Executive. These criteria are used to prioritize projects
within strategies. Strategies are also prioritized in this way to identify those areas of emphasis for KCEM
and the mitigation steering committee, though this may not impact which strategies are implemented
since many depend on exclusive funding sources. The below criteria will be used to establish priorities.
These priorities will be applied to projects annually for submission to the FEMA BRIC program.
144 Washington, District of Columbia Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. 2018. District Hazard
Mitigation Plan, Discussion Draft.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
203
King County uses the below matrix, scoring each factor from 0 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (outstanding) with
the option of a score of -4 (actively harms the factor). Identifying projects that harm, and giving harmful
factors more weight in the formula, is designed to encourage project proponents to modify their
proposed design to better resolve any issues.
• -4 Project actively harms or is detrimental to this factor.
• 0 Unsatisfactory for this factor
• 1 Minimal level of standards for this factor
• 2 Satisfactory level of standards for this factor
• 3 High level of standards for this factor
• 4 Outstanding or beyond expectations for this factor.
Strategy:
Factors for Consideration Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
Equity, Social Justice, and Vulnerability
(project is designed to benefit, account for,
and include vulnerable populations,
especially those in the community most
likely to suffer harm from a disaster and
those likely to take longest to recover after a
disaster)
Collaborative (project is supported by
multiple jurisdictions or agencies)
Multiple-Benefit (project has benefits
beyond hazard risk reduction, including
environmental, social, or economic benefits)
Adaptation and Sustainability (project helps
people, property, and the environment
become more resilient to the effects of
climate change, regional growth, and
development)
Effectiveness (project is designed to attain
the best-possible benefit-cost ratio)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
204
Urgent (project is urgently needed to reduce
risk to lives and property)
Shovel-Ready (project is largely ready to go,
with few remaining roadblocks that could
derail it)
Total Scores
Process Note: Once a jurisdiction has prioritized projects within that jurisdiction, those projects will be
advanced to the regional plan. If ever there is competition between projects advanced from different
jurisdictions, the RHMP Steering Committee, consisting of representatives from county departments and
jurisdiction partners, will establish the order of priorities based on the values identified above. The
Steering Committee will also organize priority projects with corresponding strategies. It should be noted
that while prioritized projects will be included in the plan, they may not all receive funding. The Steering
Committee may also seek to promote a diversity of projects so that all plan goals receive some benefits.
In the case of a tie between projects during scoring, the higher prioritization may go to the less-
represented mitigation strategy.
In addition to regular ranking of mitigation projects, the steering committee ranked mitigation strategies
using the above tool to identify the highest priority strategy within each department and then the highest
priority strategies for the county overall. These priorities are reported in the mitigation strategy section of
this plan.
Crosswalk with the Strategic Climate Action Plan
Several strategies appear in some form in both the SCAP and this plan. This was done to ensure multiple
avenues of implementation and monitoring and to help relevant actions gain a higher profile with other
departments. Below are strategies that appear in some form in both plans.
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Strategy Strategic Climate Action Plan Action
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction
Accelerate Floodplain Acquisitions Accelerate Floodplain Acquisitions
Public Information Flood Activities Increase Technical Assistance to Property
Owners for Flood Risk Reduction
Flood Risk Mapping Flood Risk Mapping
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
205
Reduce Flood Impacts to King County Roads Maintain Quick Response Budget for Emergency
Repairs
Stormwater and Surface Water Risk Reduction Stormwater and Surface Water Risk Reduction
Climate Integration Training Engage Partners on Climate Preparedness
Opportunities
Sea-Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities Sea-Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities
Ongoing Plan Maintenance and Strategy Updates
King County leads the mitigation plan monitoring and update process and schedules annual plan check-
ins and bi-annual mitigation strategy updates. Updates on mitigation projects are solicited by the county
for inclusion in the countywide annual report. As part of participating in the 2020 update to the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan, every jurisdiction agrees to convene their internal planning team at least
annually. Partners will convene at least biannually to update hazard mitigation strategies. For the 2020
plan, progress updates will be due in 2022 and 2024, in advance of plan expiration in 2025.
In addition to the biannual strategy updates and annual planning check-ins, mitigation strategies that
address flooding will be reviewed, revised, and updated annually. Special focus is warranted for flood
hazards since flooding has historically been the most damaging hazard and the majority of Federal
Disaster Declarations including the county are due to flooding.
Given the emphasis on plan integration described in the introduction, plan check-ins for all planning
partners will include updates on integrating comprehensive, capital improvement, and other local and
regional plans with hazard mitigation plans and data. This effort is already beginning with the integration
of hazard risk and vulnerability information into the 2020 update of the countywide planning processes.
As part of leading a countywide planning effort, King County Emergency Management will send to
planning partner any federal notices of funding opportunity for the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant
Program. Proposals from partners will be assessed according the prioritization process identified in this
plan and the county will, where possible, support those partners submitting grant proposals. This will be
a key strategy to implement the plan.
The next plan update is expected to be due in April 2025. All jurisdictions will submit letters of intent by
2023, at least two years prior to plan expiration. The county will lead the next regional planning effort,
beginning at least 18 months before the expiration of the 2020 plan.
To update and maintain the mitigation strategies, KC EM has worked with the King County Risk
Management Services department to develop a reporting tool that will allow for easier updates on 2 and
5-year objective progress. These updates will be collected electronically and feed into a program that can
track progress over time for each mitigation strategy. The strategy progress can then be reported out.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
206
Alternatively, progress made on strategies can be organized according to mitigation plan goals. This will
be done to show how projects undertaken by agencies and jurisdictions are supporting the 14
Determinants of Equity. Data parsed both in terms of the mitigation plan goals and by strategy will be
reported to the County Executive and Council biannually in the annual report of the department.
In addition to the updates for mitigation strategies, the expected publication of data from several
programs may trigger an update.
• Publication of the Department of Homeland Security Regional Resiliency Assessment Program
report
• Publication of the countywide landslide susceptibility map from Washington Department of
Natural Resources
• Publication of the Wildland Urban Interface wildfire risk map from Washington Department of
Natural Resources
• Publication of tsunami inundation data from Washington Department of Natural Resources
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
207
Plan Approval and Adoption
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is submitted first to Washington State Emergency
Management for review and then to FEMA for final review and preliminary approval. Each jurisdiction,
along with the base plan, must meet all FEMA requirements outlined in the FEMA Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan Review Guide. If requirements are found to not be met, the jurisdiction involved must
revise the plan and resubmit. Once preliminary approval is secured, FEMA will send a notice of
Approval – Pending Adoption.
The RHMP is adopted by each participating jurisdiction, primarily through a resolution passed by the
council or commission responsible. The King County Council adopted this plan on DATE, following
notice of approval, pending adoption from FEMA and Washington State Emergency Management. This
plan is effective upon adoption and will expire 5 years to the day after adoption.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
208
Mitigation Strategy Status Updates from the 2015 Plan
The format for hazard mitigation strategies has been completely changed in the 2020 plan update. All
actions previously identified have been removed and/or incorporated into new mitigation strategies. The
updated strategy format will better support tracking and implementation of mitigation strategies and
their constituent actions. Strategies that are preparedness focused have been removed, as well as those
that are ongoing in nature and do not have specific targets or responsible entities.
The following tables are taken from the 2018 annual progress report for the 2015 King County Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan. This list only includes strategies submitted by King County departments and
countywide strategies. Individual jurisdiction action progress reports are included in each annex. The
new statuses for strategies include:
• Removed – Strategy is not carried forward into the new plan
• Complete – Strategy is complete and not carried forward into the new plan
• Updated – Strategy is updated and carried forward into the new mitigation plan.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
209
CURRENT PROGRESS ON 2015 ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES
Progress
(Yes/No) Timeline
Update
Status Comment (Describe progress or changed priority)
2018
Status
CW-1—Continue to participate in and support the “Resilient King County” initiative.
Yes Long-
Term
Removed King County is continuing work towards developing a
Regional Recovery Framework. Recent efforts to vet
content with King County’s Department Directors
and Executive Office have been made to start to
formulate a governance structure.
Ongoing
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed King County’s Regional Hazard Mitigation plan and
all updated documents will continue to be posted to
the website.
Ongoing
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed We continue to enhance public education campaigns
and have now added climate resilience as part of our
educational presentations.
Ongoing
CW-4—Continue to support the use, development and enhancement of a regional alert and
notification system.
Yes Short
Term
Removed King County deployed a new Regional Alert and
Notification System. Many King County departments
and cities have signed on.
Complete
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed KC DNRP has updated landslide hazard maps (see
DNRP – WLR 3 & DNRP – WLR 4)
Ongoing
CW-6—Encourage signatories for the regional coordination framework for disasters and planned
events.
Yes Long
Term
Removed New signatories were added in 2016. Ongoing
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.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
210
Yes Long
Term
Removed Ongoing communication and coordination was
completed through the linkage process of Lake Forest
Park and Kenmore, grants coordination for various
applications, and ongoing communication for
progress reporting.
Ongoing
DNRP-SWD-1—Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed
seismic standards, including redundant essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all
renovation or replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Design standards exist and we will continue to design
and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic
standards, including redundant essential equipment.
Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or
replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Complete
DNRP-SWD-2—Vulnerability Assessment of Cedar Hills Landfills Structures. Conduct a vulnerability
assessment of buildings at the Cedar Hills Landfill to ascertain readiness.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Structural integrity to be addressed through seismic
design standards; to be removed as part of standard
work. Additional work completed to reduce
vulnerability at the landfill includes: completed
Emergency Action Plan, Dam Break Analysis,
Potential Inundation Area Mapping for the
Contaminated Stormwater (CSW) Pond dam and the
SW Stormwater Pond dam (both state registered dams
at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill). The SCADA system
is being updated to monitor and automate operation
adjustments for pumping at the CSW facility. The area
8 stockpile slope was regraded Q3 2018 in response to
a Q4 2017 slope failure (a.k.a., landslide or land
movement) and to mitigate future failure prior to the
rainy season. Coordination between SWD and OEM
enhanced, including use of mass notification system
for incident response, support and community
notification.
Complete
DNRP-WLR-1—Flood Insurance Program. Continue to maintain compliance and good standing
under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be accomplished through the implementation
of floodplain management programs, at a minimum, will meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP,
which include the following:
• Enforcing the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Providing public assistance and information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Met minimum requirements of the NFIP by
providing public assistance and information on
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
211
floodplain requirements, enforcing the adopted flood
damage reduction ordinance and participating in
floodplain mapping updates. Maintain a CRS Class 2
rating, which verifies that King County meets and
exceeds FEMA NFIP minimum requirements.
DNRP-WLR-2—Landslide Hazard Coordination. Form an interdepartmental landslide hazard
committee that includes DNRP, DPER, DOT, and OEM. The committee will address broad policy
issues, including capital projects, communication, code changes, etc.
No Long-
term
Updated Form an interdepartmental landslide hazard
committee that includes DNRP, DPER, DOT and
OEM. The committee will address broad policy
issues, including capital projects, communication,
code changes, etc.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-3—Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase I. Update the current landslide hazard map with
information that has been collected to date.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Low priority now that map is complete.
Status: Complete for areas within major river
corridors and Vashon-Maury Island.
Comment: A Phase 1 map was completed in October
2014. Phase I mapping along river corridors was
completed by Water Land Resources Division as the
service provider to the King County Flood Control
District and Phase 1 mapping for Vashon-Maury
Island was provided by KC DPER. Areas outside of
major river corridors were not included in this map.
Complete
DNRP-WLR-4—Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase II. Create a geo-database with detailed information
on landslide types, run out, landslide dams, etc. Database will be searchable and updatable as new
information is acquired.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Phase II mapping along river corridors was completed
by Water Land Resources Division as the service
provider to the King County Flood Control District
(KCFCD). Areas outside of the major river corridors
(including Vashon-Maury Island) are not included in
the geo-database. This mapping along river corridors
includes five general landslide types, each of these
were mapped separately to illustrate potential hazard
areas. This mapping has been completed along with a
supporting technical report, database and a user-
Complete
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
212
friendly web tool. It is anticipated that this mapping
will be publicly available in August 2016. This
mapping will be available in a GIS format. No
suitable methodology was identified to predict future
landslide runout beyond area of current landslide
debris deposition. Therefore, neither such landslide
runout, nor the resulting formation of landslide dams
was mapped. At this time funding has not been
secured for ongoing database management or further
updates to the river corridor landslide mapping
information.
DPER completed a separate landslide hazard
mapping project covering unincorporated King
County largely outside of the forest production
zone. This was an expansion of the Phase 1 mapping
and was needed to identify areas for further
geotechnical investigation during building and land
use permit application reviews. This mapping does
not distinguish between different landslide
processes. The DPER mapping is complete to
current specifications and is presently undergoing
internal review. DPER’s map of potential landslide
hazards will be available in a GIS format. It will be
updated at appropriate intervals as needed following
receipt of new data.
Landslide hazards in incorporated areas outside of
major river corridors are not included in the Phase I
or Phase II products. At this time no work is funded
or planned to conduct landslide hazard mapping for
incorporated areas that are outside of the major river
corridors.
DNRP-WLR-5—Flood Protection Facility Maintenance. Maintain and repair damaged structural
elements for King County’s extensive inventory of flood protection facilities.
Yes Long-
term
Updated County staff completed 421 inspections on 332 levees
and revetments during the reporting period. Of these,
143 were routine inspections and 279 were post-flood
inspections following the 2015-2016 flood season.
Resulting in identification of damages to flood
protection facilities and repairs or emergency
management plan.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
213
Maintenance of more than 70 sites included irrigation,
signage, hazard tree mitigation, debris removal,
planting, mulching, mowing and installation of a
device to prevent beavers from blocking two large
culverts which could result in flooding homes and
roads in the North Bend area.
Resulting in reduced potential for flooding.
DNRP-WLR-6—River Corridor Restoration. Remove, slope back, or set back County-owned flood
protection facilities and other structural features to allow for improved riparian habitat, greater channel
diversity and migration, reclaimed flood storage and enhanced open space or recreational/ interpretive
uses.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Completed projects allowing for river corridor
restoration include the Sinnema Quaale Revetment
project on the Snoqualmie River. This revetment
repair was completed in the summer of 2016 and has
significantly decreased the risks to the Snoqualmie
Valley Trail, regionally significant fiber optic lines and
SR203. The Countyline to A Street levee setback on
the White River is currently under construction.
Additional setback projects are planned for
construction in 2017.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-7—Flood Hazard Mitigation. Acquire repetitively damaged homes, purchase
underdeveloped land to prevent future development in flood prone areas, and, where cost-effective
and feasible, elevate residential homes that sustain recurring deep, low-velocity flooding.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Non-structural mitigation efforts are ongoing in flood
prone areas. Eleven at-risk homes were elevated in
the Snoqualmie basin during the reporting period;
another 13 home elevations are underway. Elevating
homes eliminates flood damage to living space,
resulting in a more resilient community. Acquisition
of the last at-risk parcel in the San Souci
neighborhood along the Tolt River completed 20
years of effort to acquire 18 parcels from willing
landowners. These actions have completely eliminated
flood risks to the entire neighborhood and eliminated
emergency monitoring and response to the
neighborhood.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
214
DNRP-WLR-8—Critical Facility Retrofit. Retrofit the Black River Pump Station by updating the fuel
pumps to meet seismic requirements. Currently, the fuel supply tanks for King County flood facilities
cannot withstand a moderate to major quake.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Recent improvements include:
• Replacing the single-walled fuel system
with double-walled tanks and lines to
handle all diesel fuel in accordance with
current code requirements
• Replacing the pumphouse roof
• Installing safety rails on the roof
Sediment had accumulated in the pump inlet bays,
hindering operation of pump screen systems.
Accumulated sediment was emptied from the bays
and inlet apron in 2016 to allow continued operation
of the screens and pumps. This improves the certainty
of flood protection the station provides too much of
Renton and parts of Tukwila and Kent.
Staff have completed update of Emergency Action
Plans for 10 state registered dams in compliance with
Washington Dam Safety Office. Improvements to
these plans include automated notification applying
King County Alert and King County Inform
emergency notification platforms; upgrades to dam
break analysis and Potential Inundation Area
mapping; and enhanced coordination between
operations and emergency planning.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-9—Flood Hazard Reduction Programs. Conduct activities that are vital to the mitigation
of the natural hazards impacting King County, such as hazard identification, warning, information
dissemination and public outreach.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Expansion of the King County Flood Warning
System to include the South Fork Skykomish River. A
four-phase warning system is being developed in time
for the 2016–2017 flood season, following review and
approval by the District. This system is expected to
provide flood warnings to people who live, work or
travel through the town of Skykomish and the
surrounding area.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
215
In October, the annual flood warning brochure was
mailed to 19,222 addresses in the King County river
floodplain.
Significant outreach efforts during the reporting
period include preparation for flood season, outreach
about multiple construction projects, as well as
outreach about floodplain planning, technical studies
and maps, and other public engagement efforts.
DNRP-WLR-10—Critical Facility Upgrade. Continue to update flood warning telemetry and gauging,
computers, software applications, emergency power, and other response facilities.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Updates to the King County Flood App for iOS,
Android, and Windows phones were completed for
release by October 2015. All King County websites
were migrated to a new "mobile responsive" template
which adapts to a wide range of screen sizes, from
small smartphone displays to big screen desktop
displays. In addition, improvements were made to the
back-end systems that manage the flood data used on
the websites, apps and automated phone systems.
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-1— Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed
seismic standards, including essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or
replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Yes Long-
term
Updated This is an ongoing process- we apply current seismic
standards to all renovation and/or replacement of
existing facilities or equipment.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
216
DNRP-WTD-2—Vulnerability Assessments. Conduct vulnerability assessments of WTD treatment
plant facilities and conveyance system structures for flooding, earthquakes, large-scale power outages,
and hazardous material spills into the conveyance system (accidental or deliberate, i.e. terrorist action).
The assessments should include the following:
• Review existing earthquake vulnerability assessments and identify facilities and structures that
need further assessments.
• Review existing emergency power generation capacities at treatment plants, offsite facilities and
interceptors (pipelines) to identify vulnerabilities and response & restoration protocol
enhancements.
• Review existing spill response procedures and protocols for hazardous materials spills (both
accidental and intentional releases) that impact flows into the WTD system. Update and
coordinate emergency procedures with key fire departments and the Office of Emergency
Management.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Request for Proposal issued on 7/12/2016 Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-3—Modification of Existing Facilities. Use the data gathered by the earthquake
vulnerability assessments to identify capital projects that increase the resistance of the division’s
structures and conveyances to damage or that allow a rapid recovery from damage. Projects may
include seismic bracing of equipment and piping, removal of z-beam structures, access road
reinforcement for the West Point Treatment Plant, or seismic upgrade of underwater interceptors.
No Long-
term
Updated This task is driven by the results of the above
vulnerability
assessments which have yet to be conducted. See item
2 above
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-4—Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessments. Implement cost-effective measures to
address, through capital improvement and asset management programs, the vulnerability of 20 facilities
at risk of saltwater inflow. The facilities were identified by a WTD analysis of the wastewater system to
identify facilities at risk for saltwater inflow from future sea level rise, existing and predicted high tides,
and storm surges.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-5—Control System/ Cyber Security Vulnerability Assessment and Procedure Audit.
Implement the Ovation project—a multi-year, multi-million-dollar upgrade of the Wastewater
Treatment Division’s legacy control systems. WTD is in the process of updating its control systems.
Vulnerability assessments are designed into the Ovation project. When the system is operational, a
security audit would be conducted to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to protect the
system.
No Long-
term
Updated This assessment will be conducted when the system is
operational
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
217
DNRP-WTD-6—Emergency Communications Vulnerability Assessment. Perform an assessment to
determine the number of radios necessary to support operational readiness in the event of a widespread
telecommunications failure. Currently all key operational facilities and offsite operation and maintenance
vehicles are equipped with 800 MHz radios, constituting WTD’s core emergency communications
method. The analog equipment currently deployed is first generation and is being sunsetted as the
system is converted to a digital format. All the division’s analog radios will need to be replaced in the
next 3 to 5 years. Perform a further assessment of the reliability and deployment of other
communications devices: cell phones, smart phones, iPads, text messaging, and the emergency
notification system (MyState/AlertSense).
No Long-
term
Updated Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-7—GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data. Update the
WTD/DNRP Emergency Response map with the current priority roads, bridges, earthquake
liquefaction, inundation and landslide zones and gas/petroleum pipelines, under-laid with WTD
facilities and conveyance lines and emergency outfalls to facilitate emergency response and continuity
of operations. Make this information available through a password-protected website for select users.
Explore connecting the map to real-time flow data.
Yes Short-
term
Updated A GIS emergency mapping site is now operational on
the WTD intranet that shows facilities and
conveyance system. Working on moving it to an
internet site so that it can be accessed 24/7 by off
duty personnel.
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-8—Emergency Event Management System. Determine the best method for WTD to
manage and share emergency response and continuity of operations activities across the division’s five
treatment plants and the division headquarters in the King Street Center. Determine if the Regional
Information System can fulfill this function and, if not, what alternative systems are available
(WebEOC, CodeRed, etc.).
No Long-
term
Updated Tested the KC OEM SharePoint site during the CSZ
exercise. Assessing the need for a separate WTD
system
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-9—Emergency Response/ Damage Assessment/FEMA Cost Tracking. To ensure
maximum FEMA reimbursement for disaster repair/mitigation, implement a system to capture and
track emergency response activities and expenses form the beginning of incidents through damage
assessment and restoration. Use this tracking system for all out-of-the-ordinary emergency events.
Include labor, equipment, mileage, supplies, expendables, and outside contracting associated with
response and repair.
No Short-
term
Updated Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
218
DOT-1—Updated response plans to address terrorism preparedness, including the following:
• Improve existing systems to address new technologies that are available for early weapons-of-
mass-destruction detection.
• Leverage existing resources and partnerships (Securitas, King County Sheriff’s Office, Seattle
Police Department, Seattle Fire Department) to train and exercise together for continuity
during real-world events.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Ongoing
DOT-2—Update messaging, response plans, and procedures to address winter weather, including the
following:
• Outreach to vulnerable and at-risk populations for transportation for individuals who need to
get to life-saving medical appointments (dialysis, chemotherapy).
• Coordination with healthcare and transportation partners to ensure access to medical care.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Complete
DOT-3—Update and improve plans to address continuity of transportation services, provision of
medical care, and infrastructure resiliency, including the following:
• Plans and procedures for workforce continuity and service provision.
• Coordination with local partners on evacuation and responder routes, lifeline routes, and
transportation routes.
• Technical systems and IT infrastructure (e.g. computer programs, SCADA systems).
Yes Long-
term
Removed Ongoing
DOT-4—Install security cameras on public buses to deter crime associated with civil unrest and
terrorist acts.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Metro will have at or near 100% of their fleet
equipped with cameras by the end of 2018.
Complete
DPER-1—Continue inspection of existing and new construction.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Inspection to ensure code compliance of both new
and existing building and sites are conducted for all
permit work.
Ongoing
DPER-2—Provide plan reviews for noted construction.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Inspection to ensure code compliance of both new
and existing building and sites are conducted for all
permit work.
Ongoing
DPER-3—Work with schools and fire service public educators to deliver public safety messages.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Operational (annual) fire safety inspection of schools
was initiated this past year after several years of
inaction.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
219
FMD-1—Replace Alder Tower, Alder Wing and Youth Detention Facility with a new modern juvenile
justice center meeting all seismic standards. Planning is underway for the new, voter-approved $210
million Children and Family Justice Center. Completion of the new facility is expected in 2019.
Yes Long-
term
Removed New facility is now expected in 2019 rather than 2018. Complete
FMD-2—Mitigate structural damage at King County Facilities. This initiative also involves training to
determine structural damage during and after hazard events.
Yes Long-
term
Updated The Facilities Management Division has undertaken
replacement of some fire protection systems which as
a result, will reduce fire damage during hazard events.
Ongoing
FMD-3—Mitigate non-structural facility damage at King County facilities. This initiative also involves
training to determine non-structural damage during and after hazard events.
Was an
action
taken?
Short-
term
Updated The Facilities Management Division recently received
a report about serious deficiencies at the King County
Courthouse. We will be updating the response to this
issue outside of the cycle of this report.
Ongoing
KCIT-1—Enterprise Server Optimization Project. Implement a standard virtual environment at the
King County Data Center to set the foundation for the King County Public Cloud Services to expand
infr2astructure service offerings.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-2—King County TV High-Definition Upgrade. Replace obsolete station infrastructure with
industry standard high-definition and digital equipment, allowing for delivery of the highest level of
service to the citizens of King County.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-3—Countywide Telephone System Replacement. Replace obsolete telephony infrastructure and
telephone systems with a modern and feature-rich communications solution.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete by end of 2010. Ongoing
KCIT-4—Business Empowerment and User Mobility. Improve the King County wide area network to
meet business requirements and provide a solid foundation for growth within a resilient and stable
network.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-5—Administration Building Rewire. Upgrade network cabling in King County Administration
Building to meet infrastructure standards, provide a more robust network connecti2vity to the services
provided at the facility, and take advantage of technological advancements.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
220
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
PH-1— Inform the public on risk-reduction techniques for a communicable disease event. “Stop
Germs, Stay Healthy” public education campaign increases awareness of healthy behaviors, including
hand washing and “cover your cough”.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Public Health promotes infection control prevention
every day as well as during outbreaks and flu season.
Current focus is on fact sheets with pictograms for
outbreaks such as hepatitis A and measles as well as
guidelines for encampments and homeless service
providers. Also actively using social media and blogs
to promote messages.
Ongoing
PH-2—Update response plans to address emerging infectious disease outbreaks, including the
following:
• The allocation of resources (antivirals, vaccine, personal protective equipment) from the
strategic national stockpile.
• Improvements to surveillance systems to address new technologies
• Leverage existing private and public partnerships (CBO, healthcare, pharmacies) to serve as
medication centers and increasing access to medications for hard-to-reach communities.
• Risk communications and messaging, including use of social media.
Yes Short-
term
Removed A number of response plans were updated including
medical countermeasures, equity response plan, risk
communication plan, and workforce mobilization
plan. Tested new systems for surveillance and plans
during hepatitis A and measles outbreaks, including
easy to understand visual display of cases and
vaccination efforts.
Completed
PH-3—Update response plans and procedures to address winter weather, extreme heat, and other
climate-related events including the following:
• Outreach to vulnerable and at-risk populations for carbon monoxide poisoning prevention.
• Transportation for individuals who need to get to life-saving medical appointments (dialysis,
chemotherapy).
• Coordination with healthcare providers and NW Healthcare Response Network to ensure
access to medical care.
• Coordination with shelter providers for first aid teams and access for people to re-charge
medical equipment.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Consolidated weather events into one extreme
weather plan, updated winter weather transportation
plan and added wildfire smoke protocols. Tested
winter weather plans, including medical appointment
protocol during 2019 snow events.
Completed
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
221
OEM-1—Inform the public on personal and community preparedness actions they can take to lessen
their need for immediate response following a disaster. “Take Winter by Storm” and “What to Do to
Make It Through” are two outreach campaigns designed to get the message across to the whole
community. These campaigns include trainings, presentations, and tools to facilitate increased
community preparedness.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Strategy is ongoing by nature and preparedness-
focused. Removed.
Ongoing
OEM-2—Create a program to facilitate training for small businesses to increase their resilience to all
hazards. Training content would include employee preparedness, business continuity, and recovery
planning. Methods of training would include workshops, tools, and one-on-one help.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Initial steps to create Business EOC and conduct pilot
test were taken in June during Cascadia Rising. As a
result of early coordination with Seattle and King
County, 7 companies representing more than 150,000
employees participated and were able to make faster
operational decisions that could protect company
resources and staff in a real event. Examples include
early evacuation notifications, avoiding traffic
disruptions, and setting up alternate modes of
communication. Continuing to work with City of
Seattle, WAEMD, and FEMA on building a Regional
BEOC model.
Ongoing
OEM-3—Manage and facilitate the Resilient King County initiative, a countywide planning process for
crafting a comprehensive long-term recovery strategy following an earthquake or major catastrophe.
Develop the Resilient King County final report and the long-term recovery plan.
Yes Short-
term
Updated Conducted facilitated discussion with Executive
Leadership Team as part of Cascadia Rising Exercise.
Will vet plan content over summer and fall 2016.
Ongoing
OEM-4—Take advantage of technological and procedural improvements in regional alert and warning
systems to provide the most effective, efficient, and cost-effective messaging to residents, businesses,
and government, especially during emergencies.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Completed launch for new Alert & Notification
system in May 2016. As a result, King County not
only has the ability to provide alerts to all 2.1 million
residents but also, 16 new cities have signed up and
have direct ability to message their residents for local
events. This allows a reduction in hazard impact as
people will have more time to prepare themselves and
their property by receiving alerts during an
emergency.
Complete
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
222
OEM-5—Continue to update and improve the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)
and the Continuity of Operations Plan.
Yes Short-
term
Removed The CEMP has been updated in 2018/2019. Complete
OEM-6—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land
uses within the jurisdiction.
Yes Short-
term
Updated Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been
incorporated into the King County Strategic Climate
Action Plan. Will also serve as a reference for
recovery.
Ongoing
OEM-7—Continue to support the countywide initiatives in this plan.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Ongoing
OEM-8—Coordinate and actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy of this plan.
Yes Short-
term
Updated County is implementing additional support for grant
administration and outreach to promote mitigation.
Ongoing
OEM-9—Continue to encourage community participation in incentive-based programs such as CRS,
FireWise, and StormReady.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Ongoing
2020 King County Hazard Mitigation Strategies
King County identified the following strategies through meetings among county departments. These
strategies were scored by each department using the prioritization criteria outlined earlier in this section.
The highest priority from each department is highlighted below. From the list of top priorities for each
department the highest countywide priorities were selected. These are:
• Integrate equity and social justice into planning, outreach, mitigation, response, and recovery
• Integrate hazards and vulnerability information into comprehensive planning
• Establish a resilient seismic transportation lifeline
STRATEGY PRIORITY (SCORE) LEAD AGENCY KEY OUTCOMES
Reduce Flood Impacts
to Unincorporated
King County Road
System 18 DLS - Roads
Lower road damage from repeated
flooding, especially in the
Snoqualmie Valley.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
223
Increase Seismic
Resilience of Bridges in
Unincorporated King
County 16 DLS - Roads
Seismic retrofits to King County
bridges, especially those supporting
the transportation seismic lifeline.
Stormwater Outfall
Erosion Hazard
Inventory 18 DNPR
Hazard inventory of stormwater
outfalls and mapping of those areas
in GIS.
Resilience in Design
and Build of Critical
Water Treatment and
Conveyance Facilities 23 DNRP
Improvements, retrofits, and new
construction of water treatment
facilities that meets seismic
resilience needs.
Landslide, Erosion, and
Sedimentation Event
Mapping 19 DNRP
Mapping of hazard areas and
establishment of GIS layers.
Sea Level Rise
Resilience in
Wastewater Facilities 18 DNRP
Measures to move or reduce risk to
wastewater facilities in areas
projected to be impacted by sea-
level rise.
Stormwater and
Surface Water Risk
Reduction 18 DNRP
Retrofits to endangered stormwater
facilities. Focus on those areas at
greatest risk of failure.
Control System
Security and
Performance 16 DNRP
Protection of wastewater system
from cyber-attacks.
GIS Emergency
Response Mapping and
Real-Time Flow Data 15 DNRP
Real time GIS updates to critical
facility information.
Emergency
Communications
Enhancements 12 DNRP
Improvements to, and resilience of,
emergency communications tools.
Emergency Event
Management System 12 DNRP
Improvements to WebEOC,
including training on it.
Flood Warning
Program 18 DNRP - Flood
Flood warning, including public
information about warning system.
Post-Flood Recovery
Efforts 19 DNRP - Flood
Resilient rebuilding following a
flood disaster.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
224
Home Elevations 18 DNRP - Flood
Elevations of homes out of base
flood elevation when acquisition is
not feasible.
Home Acquisitions and
Relocations 19 DNRP - Flood
Prioritize acquisition as a tool of
risk reduction and take advantage
of post-disaster acquisition
opportunities.
Protect and Restore
Natural Floodplain
Functions 17 DNRP - Flood
Take advantage of natural systems
to reduce flood risk and restore
flood risk areas to their natural
state.
Flood Risk Mapping 16 DNRP - Flood
Improve and update flood risk
maps, accounting for climate
change.
Public Information
Flood Activities 16 DNRP - Flood
Conduct outreach around flood
hazard information.
Flood Insurance
Promotion 16 DNRP - Flood
Promote flood insurance to all
homeowners, renters, and business
owners.
Enforce Higher
Floodplain
Management
Regulations 13 DNRP - Flood
Enforce King County’s higher
standards to prevent the creation of
new flood risk.
Manage Flood
Protection Facilities 4 DNRP - Flood
Manage flood protection facilities
to ensure they will not fail during a
major flood or earthquake.
Seismic Evaluation of
King County
Courthouse and
Maleng Regional
Justice Center 16 FMD
Evaluate the vulnerability of major
King County justice facilities and
develop a strategy to address
deficiencies.
Integrate ESJ into
Mitigation, Response,
and Recovery Activities 25 KCEM
Fully account for equity and social
justice in all planning and activities
to help ensure that disasters do not
increase inequity.
Seismic Lifeline Route
Resilience 23 KCEM
Establish transportation seismic
lifelines and begin retrofitting
vulnerable segments to a standard
that will enable effective response
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
225
and recovery following an
earthquake.
Integrate Hazard
Mitigation and
Comprehensive
Planning 21 KCEM
Integrate hazards and vulnerability
information into comprehensive
planning policies, mapping, and
related activities to prevent the
creation of new risk through
development in high hazard areas.
Engage Community
Organizations in
Emergency
Management 20 KCEM
Leverage existing community
capabilities and engage with
communities to promote
emergency preparedness and
catalogue potential needs.
Climate Integration
Training 18 KCEM
Train local jurisdictions on how to
integrate climate change
information into planning, projects,
and emergency management.
Disaster Skills Risk
Reduction Training 18 KCEM
Train communities on what to do
in a disaster and how to protect
themselves and their families.
Dam Failure Risk and
Impact Reduction 16 KCEM
Identify and remove or rehabilitate
high hazard dams and conduct
outreach on dam safety for good
condition dams that will not be
removed.
Wildfire Preparedness
and Risk Reduction 15 KCEM
Convene partners engaged in
wildfire planning activities to
coordinate community outreach
and reactions to new mapping and
potential building codes.
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Grant
Support 15 KCEM
Support local jurisdictions who
have little experience in developing
applications for FEMA HMA.
Public Assistance
Grant Support 15 KCEM
Support local jurisdictions and
county agencies with PA following
a disaster declaration and expand
the use of PA Mitigation funds.
Language Accessible
Video Emergency
Messaging 26 PHSKC
Develop video and other
emergency messaging that is
accessible to non-English speakers
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
226
and those who are blind or hearing
impaired.
King County Facilities
Indoor Air Quality
Monitoring Network 16 PHSKC
Monitor and mitigate air quality in
King County facilities.
Medical Gas Seismic
Detection &
Emergency Shut Off 10 PHSKC
Install automatic gas detection and
shutoff systems for hospitals and
medical centers.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
227
Reduce Flood Impacts to the Unincorporated King County Road System
Lead
Jennifer Knauer,
King County
Department of
Local Services,
Road Services
Division
Partners
King County Flood
Control District
Cities
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 4, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$500,000 (Snoqualmie
Valley study)
Additional design,
construction costs TBD
Vision
Reduce the impacts of major river flooding to the unincorporated King County Road system within
the Snoqualmie Valley and other major river valleys
Description
The Snoqualmie Valley is located approximately 8-10 miles east of Seattle, Washington and chronic
localized and larger-scale flooding regularly impacts and closes roads within the floodplain. During
major flood events, King County has identified that countywide, eleven roads are frequently closed, of
which ten are located in the Snoqualmie River Basin.
During major flood events, cross-Snoqualmie Valley routes are not passable and approximately
15,000+ residents are cut off from emergency services and accessing other critical destinations during
a flood event. When cross-valley road closures occur, they impact over 25,000 drivers per day. There
is a need for a permanent flood tolerant cross-valley route, in part due to growth in eastern King
County cities and increasing traffic volumes on unincorporated King County roads. In addition to
selecting, designing and constructing one cross-valley flood tolerant route, there is a vital need for
improved resiliency across other unincorporated King County roads in flood prone portions of the
Snoqualmie Valley, as well as other unincorporated King County floodplain locations. A joint study is
proposed to be completed by the King County Road Services Division and the King County Flood
Control District. The purpose of the study is to evaluate a subset of primary cross-valley routes for the
purpose of identifying a cost-effective option that can be built to withstand major flood events and
provide east-west access across the valley during major flood events.
Improving the flood resiliency of existing county roads, as well as designing and constructing a flood
tolerant cross-Snoqualmie Valley route will be complex and costly. King County Road Services
Division continues to struggle to meet its preservation service goals for unincorporated King County
roads and bridges, due to current and future forecast financial constraints. The activities identified
through this strategy are unfunded needs and a funding strategy will need to be prepared and
successfully implemented.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund cross-valley study
• Scope cross-valley study
5-Year Objectives
• Complete cross-valley study
• Complete planning level cost
estimates for study
• Pursue grant opportunities
Long-Term Objectives
• Obtain grant funds to
design and build a flood
tolerant cross-valley route
• Construct the route
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Fund study to evaluate options to assess which major roadway across the Snoqualmie River Valley
may be improved to withstand chronic river flooding.
• Initiate and complete the study
Performance Measure
• Study completion
• Route selected, as informed by the study
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
228
Increase Seismic Resilience of Bridges in Unincorporated King County
Lead
Jennifer Knauer,
King County
Department of
Local Services,
Roads Division
Partners
Cities
KC EM
WSDOT
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 4, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$500,000 (study costs)
TBD design and
construction costs
FEMA BRIC Grants
Vision
Improved seismic stability for unincorporated King County lifeline route bridges
Description
Evaluate the seismic stability of unincorporated King County lifeline route bridges and complete
seismic retrofits as informed by the results of the study. Seismic improvements to unincorporated
King County lifeline route bridges were completed from 1995 through 2008, to retrofit these bridges
to level 2 standards, the standard adopted by the King County Council that reflected the
contemporary standards of that time. Subsequent to completion of these retrofits, seismic evaluation
standards have changed. This strategy involves evaluating all unincorporated King County lifeline
bridge routes to a retrofit level 3 (highest level), which reflects the current evaluation standard.
Bridges retrofitted to a seismic level 3 would likely withstand a seismic event and still be in serviceable
status. Outcomes from this strategy includes a prioritized list of lifeline bridge seismic retrofit needs
and total program cost estimates. This strategy also involves securing the funding and completing the
seismic retrofits identified within the prioritized needs list. King County Road Services Division
continues to struggle to meet its preservation service goals for unincorporated King County roads and
bridges due to current and future forecast funding constraints. The activities identified through this
strategy are unfunded needs and a funding strategy will need to be prepared and successfully
implemented.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund UKC bridge seismic
assessment study
• Complete seismic assessment
study
5-Year Objectives
• Secure capital funds
Long-Term Objectives
• Complete seismic
upgrades to UKC
lifeline route bridges
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Secure funds for the study
• Complete the study and produce prioritized list of lifeline route bridge seismic retrofit needs and
costs
• Prepare funding strategy
• Secure capital funds in support of seismic retrofits
• Complete seismic retrofits
Performance Measure
• Study completed
• Funding strategy prepared and successfully implemented
• Bridge seismic retrofits completed
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
229
Stormwater Outfall Erosion Hazard Inventory
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health associated with
landslides, severe erosion, and sediment deposition caused or threatened by discharges from
stormwater system outfalls, both public and private. There are hundreds of stormwater system
outfalls throughout unincorporated King County that discharge onto slopes or into ravines that are
prone to landslides or severe erosion, or where sediment deposition is a hazard downstream. Many
of these are known from past events but are not inventoried in any organized way. Many others are
not known without an inventory effort to identify them.
Description
1. Establish a GIS mapping layer/database to inventory locations where the discharges from
stormwater system outfalls have caused or pose a risk of causing landslides, severe erosion,
and/or sediment deposition impacts downstream. Include in the inventory a description of the
landslide and erosion processes at play if known or determined through geotechnical evaluation.
Include potential causal agents such as slope, soil composition, drainage area, and discharge rates.
Include descriptions of observed or potential impacts to structures, facilities, roads, driveways,
water quality, and fish habitat. Include a description of the potential mitigation improvement
(e.g., tightline, channel stabilization, settling facility, etc.) and its approximate cost.
2. Populate the GIS database with known incidents of erosive problems downstream of outfalls. If
additional information is needed on an incident, conduct a field investigation to collect it. In
addition to known incidents, review existing stormwater system maps, landslide hazard area
maps, erosion hazard area maps, and steep slope hazard area maps to identify outfalls that are
potentially at risk of causing erosive problems downstream. Conduct field investigations of these
outfalls and their drainage path downstream to determine the nature of any hazards that might
exist. If hazards do exist, inventory the location and record the information mentioned above in
the GIS database.
3. Use the GIS inventory information to identify and prioritize hazard mitigation projects for
feasibility analysis to determine an updated cost and other information needed for ranking against
other competing projects. This information can also be used to provide technical assistance to
affected property owners if funding is not readily available for a mitigation project. In addition,
the information would be beneficial to setting mitigation requirements during the County’s
permit review of new development projects upstream of problematic outfalls.
At this time, funding has not been appropriated for a program that would implement this mitigation
strategy. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that will consider this
along with other along with other program ideas for minimizing risk and optimizing stormwater
management.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete Stormwater Services
strategic plan to determine
support for this program.
5-Year Objectives
If there is support for the
program in the strategic plan, seek
funding for its implementation.
Long-Term Objectives
• N/A
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
230
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Establish GIS database as described under mitigation strategy.
• Populate GIS database with outfall locations known to be a problem based on past incidents.
• Populate database with outfall locations that could be a problem based on hazards that exist
downstream either mapped or determined in the field.
• Use the GIS database to identify and prioritize mitigation projects for feasibility analysis to
determine an updated cost and other information needed for ranking the project against other
competing projects.
• Implement the highest priority projects as funding becomes available. Until funding becomes
available, implement stop gap measures (e.g., sandbagging) if needed to minimize severity of
hazard.
• Where funding is not readily available for a mitigation project, offer technical assistance to
affected property owners.
Performance Measure
• Number of problematic outfalls inventoried
• Number of problematic outfalls fixed
• Number of property owners to which technical assistance was provided for private solutions
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
231
Resilience in Design and Build of Critical Water Treatment and Conveyance Facilities
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
Strategic Climate Action
Plan
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget, Revenue
Backed.
Vision
WTD Treatment Plant Facilities and Conveyance system structures are protected against identified
potential vulnerabilities, including but not limited to flooding, earthquakes, large-scale power outages
and hazardous materials spills into the conveyance system (whether those spills are accidental or
deliberate, e.g. terrorist action).
Description
Design, build, and retrofit facilities to meet or exceed seismic standards, including essential equipment.
Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or replacement of existing facilities and/or
equipment.
In April 2018 the division completed a Resiliency and Vulnerability Review of its entire conveyance
system to identify critical structures and facilities. The project which was conducted by an engineering
consultant conducted initial structural earthquake assessments of the key facilities. The report included
recommendations for mitigation projects in order of priority. Work is underway on multiple projects.
2-Year Objectives
• Vulnerability assessment
review.
• Emergency power systems
review.
• Complete retrofit of 3
facilities identified as most
critical/vulnerable.
5-Year Objectives
• Implement changes identified
in the reviews conducted in
the 2-year window.
• Update to spill response
procedures is completed.
• Complete retrofit of 6
additional facilities in order of
priority/vulnerability.
Long-Term Objectives
• Facilities that
are resilient and able
to withstand damage
from earthquakes or
other hazards
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Review existing earthquake vulnerability assessments and identify facilities and structures that
need further assessments.
• Review existing emergency power generation capacities at treatment plants, offsite facilities and
interceptors (pipelines) to identify vulnerabilities and response & restoration protocol
enhancements.
• Review existing spill response procedures and protocols for hazardous materials spills (both
accidental and intentional releases) that impact flows into the WTD system. Update and
coordinate emergency procedures with key fire departments and the Office of Emergency
Management.
Performance Measure
• % of buildings, pipelines and equipment that are built to seismic resilience standards.
• % of identified vulnerabilities and plan priorities addressed with improvements and resolutions.
• % of retrofit projects planned that are completed.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
232
Landslide, Erosion, and Sedimentation Event Mapping
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
Cooperating agencies
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 4
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
Develop a GIS mapping layer to establish a record of observed landslide, erosion, and sedimentation
events. Include in the record a description of landslide and erosion processes if available from
geotechnical evaluation. Identify landslide, erosion, and sedimentation events caused by stormwater
discharge. Use this information to identify and prioritize corrections and mitigations to reduce events.
These corrections and mitigations would be prioritized as part of the overall WLRD Stormwater
Services strategic plan (currently development) to ensure the highest risk areas are addressed first. At
this time, funding has not been secured for implementation of a corrective program for stormwater
discharges that cause or contribute to landslides, erosion, and sedimentation events.
Description
Mapping of landslide, and high erosion areas and sedimentation events provides current information
for development review and infrastructure planning, and utility protection measures to be
implemented. Reconnaissance has identified multiple sites of stream ravine slope destabilization due to
stormwater discharge from both public and private stormwater conveyance systems. Multiple
measures are readily available to relocate discharge outfall, dissipate flow erosion potential, and
implement flow control measures to reduce landslide risk and channel erosion. Sediment discharge
and debris flow incidences cause increasing cost of sediment management and property damage and
environmental impact to receiving stream habitat. This effort will also reduce inform the business risk
exposure of assets that drain to locations impacted by past events. This could result in and identify
proper use of different maintenance techniques, effective inspection/maintenance intervals, and the
priority of improvement projects needed seek to avoid emergency repairs.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop mapping to include
landslide prone areas, event
tracking and include highly
erosive process. Identify impact
areas and vulnerability to
stormwater discharges.
5-Year Objectives
• Develop program to correct
stormwater discharges causing
landside activation and high
erosion processes. Provide
assistance to private system
owners to correct stormwater
discharges to unstable slopes
in high impact areas
Long-Term Objectives
• Reduce progressive
degradation of
streams, wetlands and
lake habitats and
reduced conveyance
and flood protection
capacity resulting
from sediment
deposition.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Establish ArcGIS mapping of landslide and erosion hazard areas that identify documented
incidences, type of landslide or erosion processes and impact zones.
• Prioritize local systems with high impacts to community, public infrastructure, and environment.
• Identify corrective actions and mitigation strategies to reduce impacts and emergency response
services provided by King County.
• These actions present opportunities to improve system resilience and capacity buffering from the
impacts of climate change variability.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
233
Performance Measure
• Mapping area completed in relation to unincorporated area.
• Identification and prioritization of problematic outfalls
• Strategy to address individual sites.
• Technical assistance to citizens to implement corrective actions
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
234
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health resulting from:
1) The failure of existing stormwater and surface water infrastructure due to aging. Growing
numbers of stormwater and surface water infrastructure assets operated by or under the purview
of the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) are at or approaching the end of their
effective life where structural failure could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or fish
habitat damage.
2) More frequent overflow or functional impairment of existing stormwater and surface water
infrastructure due to expected increases in rainfall intensities over the next 50 years from climate
change. This too could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
3) The lack of stormwater control infrastructure for managing runoff from lands that were
developed before stormwater controls were required on new developments. Over two thirds of
the developed landscape in King County was built before modern stormwater controls were
required on new developments. This lack of runoff quantity and quality control has been linked
to degraded water quality and aquatic health in numerous streams and other water bodies
throughout King County as documented by a network of monitoring stations. It may also
contribute to existing flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
Description
WLRD is planning to do the following to achieve the vision/objective stated above:
1) Proactively manage existing infrastructure through inspections, maintenance, risk assessments,
and repair/replacement of the highest risk infrastructure components before they fail to avoid the
high cost of emergency repairs and the damages or injuries that can result from component
failure. This proactive management program is already in place for WLRD-operated
infrastructure assets but needs further policy development for assets managed by private parties.
WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that should address this
policy development need.
2) Develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to future runoff quantities
that will be generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate change. To
ensure new infrastructure is resilient, this methodology and standards will be incorporated into
the County’s stormwater regulations for new development and redevelopment. It will also be
used by the County to assess the need for and design of future infrastructure improvements to
reduce risk. Development of this methodology and standards is a priority of the County’s
Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has been started but additional funding will be needed
to finish it.
3) Build new and modify existing stormwater control infrastructure to mitigate for the lack of runoff
quantity and quality controls on older developed lands. Projects that do this are called
“stormwater retrofits” and several pilot projects are currently underway at various locations
across King County. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan and
retrofit prioritization framework that will give direction to future planning and implementation of
stormwater retrofits. A formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and steward future
retrofits is currently unfunded.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
235
2-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 48 high risk facility
assets and continue inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on remaining
inventory of WLRD facility
assets. Complete Stormwater
Services strategic plan to
identify policy direction for
assets managed by private
parties.
• Seek funding to develop
methodology/standards
5-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 120 high risk facility
assets and continue
inspections, maintenance, and
risk assessments on remaining
inventory of facility assets.
• Develop
methodology/standards
Long-Term Objectives
• Implement actions to
reduce risk on 192
high risk facility assets
by 2027 and continue
inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on
remaining inventory
of facility assets.
Implement actions to
reduce risk on any
newly identified high
risk facility assets.
• Incorporate new
standards into
stormwater regulation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Implement actions to reduce risk on high risk facility assets.
• Seek funding to further develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to
future runoff quantities generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate
change.
• Continue progress on existing pilot projects to inform future stormwater retrofits. Complete the
Stormwater Services strategic plan and retrofit prioritization framework.
• Complete development of the methodology and standards described at left and vet with elected
officials and community stakeholders (e.g., developers, NGOs, tribes, etc.)
• Obtain funding for and begin implementing a formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and
steward future retrofits.
• Incorporate the new methodology and standards into the County’s stormwater regulations for
new development and redevelopment. Conduct planning efforts to identify and prioritize
predicted infrastructure problems using the new methodology and standards. This can and should
be merged with the planning program described below for stormwater retrofits. Implement
highest priority projects to address predicted infrastructure problems.
• Conduct planning efforts to identify, prioritize, and steward stormwater retrofits. This can and
should be merged with the efforts mentioned above for addressing predicted infrastructure
problems resulting from climate change. Implement highest priority retrofits.
Performance Measure
• High risk facility assets mitigated.
• Climate change infrastructure problems solved
• Acres of developed land retrofitted with stormwater controls
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
236
Sea Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities
Lead
DNRP WTD
Partners
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Sea Level Rise (Flooding)
Goal 4, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
Vision
Waterfront wastewater treatment facilities and road networks that will be affected by the rise of sea
level due to global warming are built and enhanced to improve system resilience to these impacts.
Description
Developing and implementing adaptation strategies for cost-effective measures to address, through
capital improvement and asset management programs, the vulnerability of 24 major and 380 minor
facilities and 52 miles of conveyance at risk of saltwater inflow and/or inundation. The facilities were
identified by a recent update to the WTD analysis of the wastewater system to identify facilities at risk
for saltwater inflow and inundation from future sea level rise, existing and predicted high tides, and
storm surges. This update was based on recent (2018) local and probabilistic sea level rise projections
developed by network of governmental and non-governmental organizations and universities.
A parallel effort is necessary for roadways in unincorporated King County, especially on Vashon
Island and with ferry docks that service the islands. This will be addressed through the KC Roads
strategy.
2-Year Objectives
• Work is ongoing
5-Year Objectives
• Work is ongoing
Long-Term Objectives
• Facilities that are
resilient and able
to remain operational
as the sea level rises
Implementation Plan/Actions
• The facilities were identified by a recent update to the WTD analysis of the wastewater system to
identify facilities at risk for saltwater inflow and inundation from future sea level rise, existing and
predicted high tides, and storm surges.
Performance Measure
• % of identified projects to improve resilience to sea-level rise completed.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
237
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health resulting from:
4) The failure of existing stormwater and surface water infrastructure due to aging. Growing
numbers of stormwater and surface water infrastructure assets operated by or under the purview
of the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) are at or approaching the end of their
effective life where structural failure could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or fish
habitat damage.
5) More frequent overflow or functional impairment of existing stormwater and surface water
infrastructure due to expected increases in rainfall intensities over the next 50 years from climate
change. This too could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
6) The lack of stormwater control infrastructure for managing runoff from lands that were
developed before stormwater controls were required on new developments. Over two thirds of
the developed landscape in King County was built before modern stormwater controls were
required on new developments. This lack of runoff quantity and quality control has been linked
to degraded water quality and aquatic health in numerous streams and other water bodies
throughout King County as documented by a network of monitoring stations. It may also
contribute to existing flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
Description
WLRD is planning to do the following to achieve the vision/objective stated above:
4) Proactively manage existing infrastructure through inspections, maintenance, risk assessments,
and repair/replacement of the highest risk infrastructure components before they fail to avoid the
high cost of emergency repairs and the damages or injuries that can result from component
failure. This proactive management program is already in place for WLRD-operated
infrastructure assets but needs further policy development for assets managed by private parties.
WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that should address this
policy development need.
5) Develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to future runoff quantities
that will be generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate change. To
ensure new infrastructure is resilient, this methodology and standards will be incorporated into
the County’s stormwater regulations for new development and redevelopment. It will also be
used by the County to assess the need for and design of future infrastructure improvements to
reduce risk. Development of this methodology and standards is a priority of the County’s
Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has been started but additional funding will be needed
to finish it.
6) Build new and modify existing stormwater control infrastructure to mitigate for the lack of runoff
quantity and quality controls on older developed lands. Projects that do this are called
“stormwater retrofits” and several pilot projects are currently underway at various locations
across King County. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan and
retrofit prioritization framework that will give direction to future planning and implementation of
stormwater retrofits. A formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and steward future
retrofits is currently unfunded.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
238
2-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 48 high risk facility
assets and continue inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on remaining
inventory of WLRD facility
assets. Complete Stormwater
Services strategic plan to
identify policy direction for
assets managed by private
parties.
• Seek funding to develop
methodology/standards
5-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 120 high risk facility
assets and continue
inspections, maintenance, and
risk assessments on remaining
inventory of facility assets.
• Develop
methodology/standards
Long-Term Objectives
• Implement actions to
reduce risk on 192
high risk facility assets
by 2027 and continue
inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on
remaining inventory
of facility assets.
Implement actions to
reduce risk on any
newly identified high
risk facility assets.
• Incorporate new
standards into
stormwater regulation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Implement actions to reduce risk on high risk facility assets.
• Seek funding to further develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to
future runoff quantities generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate
change.
• Continue progress on existing pilot projects to inform future stormwater retrofits. Complete the
Stormwater Services strategic plan and retrofit prioritization framework.
• Complete development of the methodology and standards described at left and vet with elected
officials and community stakeholders (e.g., developers, NGOs, tribes, etc.)
• Obtain funding for and begin implementing a formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and
steward future retrofits.
• Incorporate the new methodology and standards into the County’s stormwater regulations for
new development and redevelopment. Conduct planning efforts to identify and prioritize
predicted infrastructure problems using the new methodology and standards. This can and should
be merged with the planning program described below for stormwater retrofits. Implement
highest priority projects to address predicted infrastructure problems.
• Conduct planning efforts to identify, prioritize, and steward stormwater retrofits. This can and
should be merged with the efforts mentioned above for addressing predicted infrastructure
problems resulting from climate change. Implement highest priority retrofits.
Performance Measure
• High risk facility assets mitigated.
• Climate change infrastructure problems solved
• Acres of developed land retrofitted with stormwater controls
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
239
Control System Security and Performance
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Cyber Incident
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
General Fund
Vision
The operational control system for Wastewater Treatment Operations is secure from cyber-attack or
system failure.
Description
The wastewater treatment system is operated from three control centers which monitor the facilities
and conveyance system that flows to the treatment plants. The Ovation project is a multi-year, multi-
million-dollar upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Division’s legacy control systems. WTD is in the
process of updating its control systems. Vulnerability assessments are designed into the Ovation
project. When the system is operational, a security audit would be conducted to ensure that policies
and procedures are in place to protect the system
2-Year Objectives
• Project is staged to include in
the 2-year timeframe upgrades
to system controls in order of
priority based on assessed
vulnerability.
• Upgraded systems will be tested
in this time frame.
5-Year Objectives
• All control systems are
upgraded and have passed
security testing.
• Completion of project.
Long-Term Objectives
• A secure system.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• This is a multi-year multi-million-dollar project that is being staged by addressing the most
vulnerable systems first and working through the system.
Performance Measure
• % of QA/QC system security tests passed.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
240
GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
KCIT-Geographic
Information Systems (GIS)
King County Roads
Services Division
King County Office of
Emergency Management
Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
Critical information conveyed in the WTD/DNRP Emergency response map is available and updated
in real time.
Description
Update the King County facilities Emergency Response maps with the current priority roads, bridges,
earthquake liquefaction, inundation and landslide zones and gas/petroleum pipelines, under-laid with
King County facilities and conveyance lines and emergency outfalls to facilitate emergency response
and continuity of operations. Make this information available through a password-protected website
for select users. Explore connecting the map to real-time flow data.
A GIS emergency mapping site is now operational on the WTD intranet that shows facilities and
conveyance system. Working on moving it to an internet site so that it can be accessed 24/7 by off
duty personnel.
2-Year Objectives
• Fully deploy the system where
it can be accessed remotely
without having to log into the
KC computer system.
5-Year Objectives
• System is tested and use in
activations.
• Necessary modifications are
made.
• Project completion
Long-Term Objectives
• Emergency mapping
is reliable and
accessible.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work is ongoing and includes:
• Work with KCIT to consider improvements that include integration with real-time flow data,
integration with Roads Emergency updates and migration of mapping tool from intranet to
password secured Internet site.
• Testing to ensure access and timeliness and accuracy of information conveyed.
• Use in emergency activations.
• Socialize process and tools with partners such as Public Health Seattle and King County to aid in
environmental health emergency response.
Performance Measure
• % of successful attempts to securely access the mapping tool.
• Ratio of accuracy and timeliness as compared to real life in real time.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
241
Emergency Communications Enhancements
Lead
Allen Alston
Partners
PSERN Project
King County Radio
Services/KCIT
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
Ability to effectively communicate in large scale emergency situations where the telecommunications
may be disrupted.
Description
The division performed an assessment to determine the number of KC 800 MHz radios necessary to
support operational readiness in the event of a widespread telecommunications failure. Currently all
key operational facilities and offsite operation and maintenance vehicles are equipped with 800 MHz
radios, constituting WTD’s core emergency communications method.
A regional replacement project is underway to replace the entire 800 MHz system. It is managed by a
regional agency Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. Inventories have been provided to PSERN.
The King County Office of Emergency Management has deployed a communications tool called
KCInform. It has been incorporated into the division’s operational procedures
2-Year Objectives
• Deploy the new radios.
• Train and test the radios and
other emergency
communications.
• Analyze benefits and costs of
FirstNet
5-Year Objectives
• Continue training and testing
of communications to ensure
maximum communications
reliability in emergencies.
Long-Term Objectives
• Redundant emergency
communications are
reliable.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Deploy the new radio equipment and incorporate into the day to day communications protocols.
• Regularly test radios and other emergency communications methods, including KCInform and
FirstNet (if used).
Performance Measure
• % of successful communications systems tests.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
242
Emergency Event Management System
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
King County Office of
Emergency Management
King County Information
Technology (KCIT)
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
WTD manages and shares emergency response and continuity of operations activities across the
division’s five treatment plants and the division headquarters in the King Street Center using
WEBEOC and other systems as necessary.
Description
Assess WEBEOC’s ability to manage information and communication within the division and with its
34 component agencies, and especially the discrete tracking of multiple incidents.
Continue working with the WEBEOC team, KCIT and others as necessary to explore alternative or
additional solutions if WEBEOC can’t meet all requirements.
2-Year Objectives
• Test current system for a
variety of scenarios.
• Identify and work through
questions and gaps identified.
• Consider alternatives where
WEBEOC doesn’t fulfill
requirements.
5-Year Objectives
• Deploy an operational system
or systems.
• Document, train to and test
the system(s).
Long-Term Objectives
• There is a single
system or integrated
systems (whether
manual or not)
sufficient to manage
emergency events.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Test use of WEBEOC for a variety of scenarios with multiple contributors.
• Identify and work through questions and gaps.
• Consider alternatives where WEBEOC doesn’t fulfill requirements.
• Document progress and final systems approach.
• Communicate systems approach to users and stakeholders.
• Develop and deliver trainings on the use of the system(s).
• Test the system(s).
• Continuously improve the system(s).
Performance Measure
• Post-test system performance ratings.
• Post use (activations) system performance ratings.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
243
Flood Warning Program
Lead Points of
Contact
King County
River &
Floodplain
Management
Section, Office of
Emergency
Management
Partner Points of Contact
Cities and special purpose
districts, US Army Corps
of Engineers, NOAA,
FEMA Region 10
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing resources
Strategy Vision/Objective
When flooding is imminent, having a robust notification system helps people who live, work, or travel
through floodprone areas prepare themselves and their property for the impacts of flooding. It can
also mean fewer flood losses and less damage.
Mitigation Strategy
The River and Floodplain Management Section operates the Flood Warning Program, which includes
a Flood Warning Center that opens when river systems reach specified flows or heights. The Flood
Warning Center gives people that live, work, or travel through floodprone areas early notifications and
the opportunity to call in and receive information about ongoing flooding issues. The Center also
coordinates with local first responders, the Office of Emergency Management, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, and other stakeholders to ensure the region is as ready as possible to respond to flooding
problems.
2-Year Objectives
• Improved outreach efforts.
5-Year Objectives
• Annual exercises are
conducted to prepare the
region for flooding.
Long-Term Objectives
• Smooth operation of
the Flood Warning
Program and
integration with local
communities’
programs.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue monitoring the status of streamgages to ensure they are collecting data accurately.
Streamgages provide the underlying data that are used as the basis for Flood Alert notifications
and openings of the Flood Warning Center.
2. Review on an annual basis the various components of the Flood Warning Program and make
improvements where necessary.
3. Conduct an annual flood response exercise with other agencies to ensure the region is prepared
for flood response and recovery actions necessary. Write up an after-action report.
4. Improve public outreach materials such as flood inundation maps and online interactive map
applications that show the inundation areas of the four flood phases.
Performance Measure
• Subscribers to the Flood Alert app.
• CRS points for Activity 610.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
244
Post-Flood Recovery Efforts
Lead Points of Contact
DNRP Water and Land
Resources Division; King
County Office of
Emergency Management;
King County Permitting
Division
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Flood
Control District; FEMA
Region 10; Washington
Department of Ecology;
Washington Division of
Emergency Management
Hazards
Mitigated
/ Goals
Addressed
Flood
Goal 3, 5,
12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood Control
District; FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Grants;
Increased Cost of Compliance;
FEMA Public Assistance
Section 406 Mitigation
Strategy Vision/Objective
After a major flood event, there are many opportunities to rebuild in a more resilient way. Being
prepared to rapidly address them is key to realizing those opportunities.
Many mitigation grants, including the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, can take over 5
years from obligation to a property owner having their house acquired. King County is uniquely
positioned to utilize local resources to complete mitigation projects much quicker to help property
owners with flood-damaged property.
Mitigation Strategy
While many other flood mitigation strategies referenced in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be used to
reduce future flood risk, a separate mitigation strategy for post-flood actions is necessary. Property
owners are often more willing to sell and consider mitigation efforts after a flood. Additionally,
conducting substantial damage determinations quickly is important for flood insurance policyholders
to be able to access Increased Cost of Compliance coverage funds for rebuilding. King County needs
to be prepared before a flood occurs to move mitigation efforts forward quickly.
This strategy should also consider the permitting environment after a major flood and consider short-
term rebuilding moratoriums, permit assistance, and substantial damage letters for Increased Cost of
Compliance claims. Additionally, an update to the comprehensive plan may be needed to address
long-term recovery efforts.
2-Year Objectives
• Communications plan
prepared.
• Substantial damage strategy
prepared and deployable.
5-Year Objectives
• Substantial damage assessments
have either taken place or have
been practiced.
• Communication plan reviewed.
Long-Term Objectives
• Successful mitigation
efforts occur after
major flood events.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Prepare communications plan prior to a flood event for reaching affected property owner to
inform them of mitigation grant opportunities to purchase their damaged property or elevate their
home.
2. Ready a set of funds to deploy quickly after a major flood event.
3. Create a deployable substantial damage inspection strategy and team, and prepare the team to
rapidly conduct substantial damage determinations after a flood event or other wide-spread
natural disaster.
4. Inspect flood protection facilities and other public infrastructure to ensure public safety is
protected and to also identify opportunities for applying for FEMA Public Assistance Section 406
mitigation funding.
Performance Measures
• Property owners engaged after flood event.
• Employees trained on substantial damage assessments.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
245
Home Elevations
Lead Points of
Contact
King County
River &
Floodplain
Management
Section;
Permitting
Division
Partner Points of Contact
King County Flood
Control District, FEMA
Region 10; Washington
Department of Ecology,
Washington Division of
Emergency Management
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District; FEMA
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance grants
Vision
Elevating floodprone homes is an important tool in making buildings safer from flooding. The
buildings will be better able to withstand inundation and a family’s, or occupant’s belongings will be
well above the expected level of the 1% annual chance flood. The result will be less risk to people,
pets, and property as floodwater remains below the finished floor of elevated homes.
Description
Home elevations are appropriate in areas where floodwaters are slow moving and relatively shallow,
offer significant warning time, and are not subject to channel migration hazards. In areas of flash
floods, fast-moving floodwaters, and channel migration, the most appropriate mitigation strategy is
acquisition.
King County and the King County Flood Control District have a robust home elevation grant
program for properties in the Snoqualmie River basin that has elevated nearly 80 homes. Elevation
projects, however, are complex and require significant public investments from the County, Flood
Control District, or FEMA. Typically, home elevations cost over $200,000. Current standards require
homes to be elevated to the higher of 3 feet above the 1% annual chance flood elevation and 1 foot
above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation.
Most homeowners prefer to elevate on enclosed foundations like a crawlspace or full story enclosure.
This technique, when done with proper flood openings, can be a safe alternative, but can lead to
negative consequences such as future owners converting the lower level to finished living space, thus
reducing the benefit of the home elevation. Elevating on post or piling foundation techniques lessens
the likelihood of lower level conversion, although to some, results in a visually less desirable home.
There is a balance that the public elevation grant program needs to weigh between producing homes
that people think look nice and homes that are likely to remain safe from flooding for 50 years.
2-Year Objectives
• Have code compliance strategy
implemented.
5-Year Objectives
• Home elevations grants are
awarded outside of the
Snoqualmie Valley.
Long-Term Objectives
• All homes in shallow
and slow-moving
floodplains are
elevated at least 3 feet
above the 1% annual
chance flood
elevation.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
246
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue requiring home elevations to have the lowest floor elevated to 3 feet above the 1%
annual chance flood elevation or 1 foot above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Continue
requiring a nonconversion agreement to protect the lower enclosed levels from being converted to
living space.
2. Create a strategy to address potential code compliance issues that make elevated structures more
dangerous, including addressing:
a. Potential to convert enclosed lower level into living space.
b. Potential to install noncompliant utilities in lower level.
c. Potential to block flood openings.
d. Potential to rent out lower level.
3. Complete home elevations in appropriate floodprone areas outside of the Snoqualmie Valley,
including in coastal floodplain areas.
4. Encourage grantees to elevate using post or piling foundation techniques rather than full story
enclosures.
Performance Measure
• Repetitive loss properties elevated.
• Reduced flood insurance claims.
• Number of homes successfully and compliantly elevated.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
247
Home Acquisitions and Relocations
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River &
Floodplain
Management Section;
Ecological Restoration
and Engineering
Services Section
Partner Points of Contact
Snoqualmie Watershed Forum,
Snohomish Basin Salmon
Recovery Forum, WRIA 9
Watershed Ecosystem Forum,
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery
Council, Puget Sound Partnership,
King County Flood Control
District
Hazards
Mitigated
/ Goals
Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District, FEMA
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance grants,
Salmon Recovery Board
Grants, Floodplains by
Design
Strategy Vision/Objective
Acquiring floodprone properties, removing buildings, and restoring the property to a natural state is
the most effective strategy to reduce flood risk in perpetuity. Fewer families living in floodprone areas
and fewer businesses operating in floodprone areas so the region recovers quicker after a major flood.
Mitigation Strategy
Property acquisitions have been a tool that King County has employed for many decades to reduce
flood risk. Acquisitions are done on a willing seller basis and result in the demolition or removal of the
building from the property. Sometimes the seller moves the house to a location outside of the
floodplain. Acquisitions are mostly fee simple purchases.
While acquisition is the most effective tool to eliminate flood risk, many people perceive downsides,
including that acquisitions mean lost tax revenue and that a checkerboard approach leaves
neighborhood with missing pieces. Wherever possible, a neighborhood or area-specific strategy is the
best approach.
Acquisitions also offer many additional benefits including enhanced natural floodplain functions,
floodwater storage, and recreation potential. Because of multiple benefits, acquisitions can be done by
various agencies for different primary purposes. Some are done for ecological restoration or salmon
habitat protection while others are done primarily for flood risk reduction. An area of new
opportunity for flood risk reduction acquisitions is along the unincorporated coast on Vashon-Maury
Island. Very few have been completed for flood risk reduction purposes, but as sea levels rise and
coastal flooding worsens, King County needs to be prepared for coastal shoreline acquisitions.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop prioritized acquisition
list.
5-Year Objectives
• Complete acquisitions in
coastal areas.
Long-Term Objectives
• Acquire as many floodprone
properties as possible.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue proactively purchasing floodprone properties for the purpose of flood risk reduction.
2. Accelerate coastal floodplain acquisitions.
3. Create and maintain a prioritized acquisition list so that properties can be purchased whenever the
opportunity arises.
4. Consider other tools to purchase land over time or future development rights, such as a program
where a property owner receives an upfront payment with an agreement that the County will fully
purchase the property if it’s flooded or the owner seeks to sell.\
5. Purchase and remove infrastructure as part of neighborhood-level acquisitions.
Performance Measures
• Number of acquisitions per year.
• Percentage of flood hazard areas owned by private landowners with buildings.
• Repetitive loss properties mitigated.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
248
Protect and Restore Natural Floodplain Functions
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partner Points of Contact
Snoqualmie Watershed
Forum, Snohomish Basin
Salmon Recovery Forum,
WRIA 9 Watershed
Ecosystem Forum, WRIA
8 Salmon Recovery
Council, Puget Sound
Partnership, King County
Flood Control District
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 3, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance
Grants, Floodplains by
Design, King County
Flood Control District
Vision
Flooding is a natural process. Rivers and coastlines evolve and change because of flooding.
Encouraging the protection and restoration of natural functions of floodplains is key in creating
healthy and resilient systems.
Description
The natural functions of floodplains include storing floodwater and lowering flood heights and
velocities, all of which reduces flood risk. Natural coastlines attenuate waves distribute sediment and
large wood on beaches, and allow coastal erosion, all of which reduce coastal wave energy on
properties in the floodplain. King County has a robust focus on protecting and restoring natural
floodplain functions, but progress still needs to be made to accelerate progress and connect
restoration projects to flood risk reduction projects.
Additionally, upland forested areas provide a source of natural functions that reduces fast runoff,
manages sediment flow, and protects water quality. These upland areas should be considered vital
parts of natural floodplain functions.
2-Year Objectives
• Incorporate floodplain
connectivity and aquatic habitat
improvements in majority of
flood risk reduction projects in
the county.
5-Year Objectives
• Double the amount of
spending on floodplain
restoration and protection by
leveraging local funding to
obtain state and federal grants.
Long-Term Objectives
• Every floodplain
project achieves
multiple benefits such
as endangered species
habitat, salmon
rearing habitat, water
quality improvements,
climate resilience,
agricultural resilience,
and flood risk
reduction.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
249
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Proactively acquire floodprone properties to utilize for future restoration projects.
2. Complete restoration projects that reconnect rivers to their floodplains, remove bank armoring,
create side channels, reconnect oxbows, and encourage natural features such as beaver dams and
large wood in channels for increased flood storage and fish habitat. These projects will create
places for flood storage, which will reduce downstream flood heights and provide habitat for
endangered species.
3. Restore coastal shorelines by removing bulkheads wherever possible, creating pocket estuary
habitats, and allowing erosion to nourish beaches. Softening shorelines and creating estuaries will
result in reduced wave energy and fewer negative coastal flooding impacts.
4. Incorporate beaver habitat in restoration projects to provide flood storage and keep instream
water cooler.
5. Continue enforcing regulations that stop negative impacts on habitat and encourage net ecological
benefit. Shoreline management, critical area, and floodplain management regulations that adhere
to FEMA’s Biological Opinion are among the regulations that seek to improve natural floodplain
functions.
Performance Measure
• Acres of floodplain reconnected and/or restored.
• Large wood per mile in large rivers.
• Linear feet of bulkhead removed; and coastal shoreline restored
• Demonstrated losses avoided by increasing flood storage
• Chinook, coho, and steelhead population numbers, including annual adult spawner returns and
juvenile outmigrants.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
250
Flood Risk Mapping
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water &
Land Resources
Division; DLS
Permitting
Division
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region X,
Washington Department of
Ecology, US Army Corps
of Engineers
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood, Dam Failure
Goal 3, 5, 6, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Cooperating
Technical Partners
Program; King County
Flood Control District
Vision
Having updated flood risk data helps government agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders
make better risk-informed decisions. High quality flood data also more accurately ties regulations to
reducing flood risk.
Mitigation Strategy
While updating flood risk maps is an ongoing activity to take into account landscape and hydrology
changes, there are many flood hazards that need robust data and maps:
1. Floodplain maps – update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps used for regulatory and mitigation
planning purposes, including updating the South Fork Skykomish River and various streams that
only have approximate Zone A flood zones with no base flood elevation information.
Additionally, King County should work with incorporated urban communities to better study,
understand, and map urban flood risk.
2. Climate-influenced flood risk maps – King County and the University of Washington have been
collaborating on downscaling global climate models to generate river-basin scale hydrology data
based on the effects of climate change scenarios. King County can also evaluate other climate-
influenced changes in hydrology such as low summer flows, less snowpack, and other effects to
incorporate into maps showing climate-influenced flood risk. These data will be used to generate
maps of predicted changes in flood risk that can be used for planning and regulatory purposes.
3. Sea level rise flood risk maps – as part of the coastal flood hazard study, maps were produced
showing the effect on base flood elevation of a 2-foot rise in sea level around Vashon-Maury
Island. This study shows the broader effects of sea level rise on flood risk. These maps should be
updated with different sea level rise scenarios and also the resulting increased flood risk landward
of the edge of the 1% annual chance mapped floodplain should be considered.
4. Channel migration zone maps – currently 8 river sections have been mapped on the South Fork
Skykomish, Tolt, Cedar, South Fork Snoqualmie, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, North Fork
Snoqualmie, Green, and Raging Rivers. In addition to continually updating these maps, new river
sections need to be studied and mapped, including the Lower Snoqualmie. Channel migration
zone maps will help property owners best understand the risk from channel avulsion and help
keep more development safe.
5. Dam failure maps – every owner of a high hazard dam with the potential in a dam failure for loss
of life or structures must develop a dam inundation map as part of the Emergency Action Plan.
However, many of these inundation maps are out of date and are not accessible to the public.
Levee failure maps – King County will, where possible, study levee failure impacts and produce maps
that show areas of levee failure risk. The data and maps should be made available to the public so
people who live and work behind levees have an understanding of their flood risk.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete detailed flood study
on streams with approximate
Zone A floodplains.
• Complete levee breach analysis.
5-Year Objectives
• Identify a timeline for updated
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
with FEMA Region 10.
Long-Term Objectives
• Flood Insurance Rate
Map and other
regulatory flood data
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
251
• Create plan for integrating
flood maps and downscaled
climate model data.
• Begin sea level rise scenario
mapping for coastal shorelines.
• Establish plan for using
climate-influenced flood risk
data for planning and
regulatory purposes.
will be updated on a
regular basis.
• Highest quality flood
risk data that
incorporates effects of
climate change.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Update Flood Insurance Rate Maps to utilize better flood risk data, including the South Fork
Skykomish River and streams with Zone A maps. Also identify a strategy and timeline for
updating other streams/rivers that need updated flood risk data.
2. Create climate-influenced flood risk maps that can be used for planning purposes.
3. Create sea level rise flood risk maps for various sea level rise scenarios to be used for planning and
regulatory purposes.
4. Continue updating channel migration zone maps.
5. Release dam failure maps where appropriate and provide technical assistance to high hazard dam
owners to complete updated inundation maps.
6. Complete levee failure maps and release them to the public where appropriate.
Performance Measures
• Stream miles and linear feet of shoreline with updated flood risk, channel migration, and climate-
influenced flood risk data.
• Properties covered by updated flood risk, channel migration, and climate-influenced flood risk
data.
• Number of dams with updated inundation maps that are publicly available.
• Linear feet of levees with failure analyses publicly available.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
252
Public Information Flood Activities
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River &
Floodplain
Management Section,
Office of Emergency
Management
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region 10;
Washington Department of
Ecology; Washington
Division of Emergency
Management; King County
Flood Control District
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources
and Estimated
Costs
Existing resources
Vision
Flooding is a complicated hazard to understand and a responsibility of floodplain management
agencies is to help people understand it well enough to prepare themselves. A more informed public
means property owners who make decisions based on flood risk and fewer unexpected losses during
flooding.
Description
Effective outreach efforts are a key piece of comprehensive floodplain management. Letters sent
annually, outreach events, project-specific meetings, and providing technical assistance are all
components of effective outreach. Repetition of messages and continued outreach activities are also
important to ensuring that messages are delivered. Engaging as many types of communication
mediums as possible will also ensure that outreach efforts are effective.
2-Year Objectives
• New initiatives are
implemented.
5-Year Objectives
• Documentation that more
floodprone residents are
engaged.
Long-Term Objectives
• An informed public
that is prepared for
the effects of major
flooding.
Implementation Plan/Actions
The following activities should be conducted on an annual basis as a way to make the public more
aware of flood hazards and risks:
1. Flood brochure – sent to every property owner in the floodplain.
2. Repetitive loss letter – sent to properties with known repeated losses.
3. Realtor, insurance agent, and other stakeholder outreach – workshops, meetings, or other
outreach to professionals who need flood risk information.
4. News media outreach – coordinated effort to share stories about flood risk with the news media.
5. Annual event – separate or coordinated event every year that focuses on flood risk .
The following activities are not annual occurrences, but should be maintained to help facilitate the
availability of flood risk information:
1. Videos demonstrating flood risk, flood preparedness, and property protection measures that can
be taken.
2. Technical assistance to property owners on reducing flood risk on their property, including home
elevation support and small actions to reduce localized flood risk.
3. Maintaining a robust website, including an interactive map, with flood preparedness, mitigation,
regulation, and other flood risk information. The website will be updated at least annually and the
interactive map will incorporate new data when available.
• Floodplain management permitting bulletins will be created to help permit applicants understand
the regulations and their purpose.
Performance Measures
• Number of stakeholder groups reached
• CRS points for outreach and public information activities
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
253
Flood Insurance Promotion
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River
& Floodplain
Management
Section
Partner Points of Contact
Floodprone cities; FEMA
Region 10, insurance
agents, landlords, realtors,
mortgage lenders
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing sources
Strategy Vision/Objective
Flood insurance is the most important financial protection tool for a family against flood damage.
Promoting flood insurance is important to help property owners and renters be prepared for flooding
and reduce their financial risk.
Mitigation Strategy
Since homeowners and renter’s insurance policies do not cover flood damage, helping people
understand that flood insurance is the best financial protection tool is an important strategy.
Homeowners with a federally-backed mortgage are required to have flood insurance, so those who are
required most likely have a policy. Renters and those who own their houses free and clear are far less
likely to actively purchase a flood insurance policy. If their homes and apartments are flooded, they
may have to drain savings to pay for the damage.
Of all of the families that live in floodplains in King County, over 50% are renters, 14% own their
house without a mortgage, and 35% own with a mortgage. Families living in floodplains are much
more likely to be renters than those outside of the floodplain (only 40% of families outside of
floodplains rent). Additionally, people of color living in the floodplain are even more likely to rent.
Census data shows that 83% of African American families and 90% of Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander families living in the floodplain are renters.
So, promoting flood insurance should be primarily targeted toward renters and those who own their
house outright. The strategy should also strive to incorporate concepts of equity and social justice in
the approach and content of outreach.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed via
stakeholder committee.
• Technical assistance contact
identified.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed
via stakeholder committee.
• Technical assistance
contact identified.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed
via stakeholder
committee.
• Technical assistance
contact identified.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Identify and convene stakeholder committee to help assess problem and create strategy for
promoting flood insurance.
2. Develop and implement outreach plan that targets renters/tenants and those who own their home
with no mortgage.
3. Identify a flood insurance technical assistance contact for King County residents and businesses to
be able to ask questions.
Performance Measures
• Number of flood insurance policies in force and percentage of covered buildings.
• CRS points for Activity 370.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
254
Enforce Higher Floodplain Management Regulations
Lead Points of
Contact
DLS Permitting
Division; DNRP
Water & Land
Resources
Division
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region X,
Washington Department of
Ecology
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Minimal, on-going
• Permit fees
• Existing resources
Vision
Higher floodplain management regulations play an important role in ensuring future development in
floodplains is as safe from flood risk as possible. For example, requiring that new buildings have their
lowest floor elevated 3 feet above the 1% annual chance flood elevation means fewer flood losses and
safer buildings.
While instituting a regulation prohibiting development in floodprone areas would ultimately reduce
future flood risk potential, the flood portion stakeholder committee decided not to include a
development prohibition mitigation action due to likely political and community opposition.
Description
The King County Comprehensive Plan sets out a policy that regulations should follow the concept of
“no adverse impact,” such that any particular development must not cause any effect to worsen
flooding on another property owner. The key higher standards that do this include a requirement that
all development in the entire floodplain meet a zero-rise requirement and a compensatory storage
requirement for fill and other materials. This approach reduces any potential flood risk from new
development. King County also has higher regulations that protect new or substantially improved
buildings, including a requirement that the lowest floor be elevated to 3 feet above the 1% annual
chance flood elevation.
2-Year Objectives
• Demonstrate that King
County is enforcing its
higher standards by
showing full compliance
with the FEMA floodplain
management audit.
• Establish stakeholder
committee to review potential
higher standards to include in
King County Code.
5-Year Objectives
• Submit to King County
Council flood code
amendments that include
other higher standards.
Long-Term Objectives
• Ensuring all potential
development in
floodplains meet
flood-safe standards.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• King County agencies will continue to fully enforce the higher regulations currently in King
County Code.
• King County will consider the following higher standards in future updates of the King County
Code and will establish a stakeholder committee to evaluate the following:
o Prohibiting hazardous materials storage in the regulated flood hazard area to lessen
potential health impacts from flooding.
o Requiring non-conversion agreement for structures built on crawlspaces or full-story
enclosures to ensure fewer structures converted to unsafe and noncompliant conditions.
o Requiring building restriction agreements for properties that are removed from the
floodplain via a Letter of Map Amendment to ensure freeboard standards are extended to
properties surrounded by or close to the edge of the mapped floodplain.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
255
o Establishing a cumulative or lower substantial improvement requirement to encourage
more homes to be elevated.
o Extending 1% annual chance flood requirements to the edges of the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain to account for higher flooding events and the potential for increasing flood
risks due to climate change.
o Adopting standards to regulate development in areas likely to face increasing flood risks
due to sea level rise to protect against future flood risk.
o Establishing coastal high hazard area regulations that require permit applicants to
demonstrate that their proposed action will not cause adverse impacts on other property
owners, including the potential for wave energy reflection on to neighboring shoreline
properties.
• The Floodplain Management Plan update will consider higher regulatory standards.
• Adopt the latest version of the International Building Codes.
Performance Measure
• Fewer and less extensive flood damage during a major flooding event.
• More points in the FEMA Community Rating System category for higher regulatory standards.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
256
Manage Flood Protection Facilities
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division; King County
Flood Control District
Partner Points of
Contact
US Army Corps of
Engineers, local
governments, levee and
dam owners
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood, Earthquake
Goal 5, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District;
Floodplains by Design
Strategy Vision/Objective
Flood protection facilities should be managed in a way that foremostly considers residual flood risk.
Alternative management practices should also incorporate improving natural floodplain functions.
Mitigation Strategy
Flood protection facilities include levees and revetments that provide some degree of flood and
erosion protection depending on their design and maintenance. All flood protection facilities leave
residual risk behind them and above their protection level. In certain areas of King County, flood
protection facilities have reduced flood damage, but they have also facilitated growth in homes,
warehouses, and businesses built behind them. The expanded neighborhoods and business activities
are then more at risk of a 0.2% annual chance flood event or flooding from a levee failure, and if
climate change increases the severity of flooding events, then the flood risk will grow. Thus, it is
important for existing flood protection facilities to be managed well to protect property owners, but
also for King County to where possible reduce areas that need to be protected with expensive flood
protection facilities.
2-Year Objectives
• Updated Floodplain
Management Plan that
reflects these
priorities.
5-Year Objectives
• Flood protection facilities are managed
in way that considers multiple benefits.
• Fewer people face residual flood risk
from being behind a flood protection
facility.
Long-Term Objectives
• Flood protection
facilities are minimally
needed for
communities to be
resilient.
Implementation Plan/Actions
The following are strategies supported by the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan that
should continue:
1. Where possible, King County should remove flood protection facilities and allow rivers to
reconnect to their floodplains.
2. If flood protection facilities cannot be removed, King County should consider setting the
facilities back to allow floodplain storage.
3. Utilize bioengineering in repairs, enhancements, or temporary measures. Bioengineering
incorporates live plants and large wood in an effort to reduce flood velocities while protecting
aspects of flood protection facilities.
4. Create criteria for when these flood protection facility alternatives would be utilized.
5. Create criteria based on King County Code and the Flood Hazard Management Plan for the
conditions to construct a new flood protection facility or a new dam.
6. Ensure levees and dams are designed for earthquakes and are inspected immediately one.
Flood protection facilities should also be continually managed considering seismic risks.
Performance Measures
• Number of properties and buildings in the levee-protected areas.
• Linear feet of flood protection facilities set back or removed.
• Flood protection facilities damaged by earthquakes.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
257
Seismic Evaluation of King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center
Lead
Aaron Bert,
Deputy Director
Jim Burt, Capital
Projects Section
Manager
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 9
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA PDM, KC Capital
Budget, $200,000
Vision
Seismic evaluation of the King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center, per the
current standards of FEMA-178 and ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings. An updated assessment of building risks is needed for further seismic hazard mitigation
planning and seismic retrofit, to protect and mitigate against potential loss of life, loss of asset, and
loss of essential function capabilities during and immediately after an earthquake event.
Description
King County last completed a seismic hazard assessment of its essential facilities in 1993, based on
building codes and seismic hazard protection data available at that time. Since then, earthquakes have
produced unexpected and major infrastructure damage and loss of life from relatively small seismic
events and have contributed to new data supporting major revisions to seismic mitigation strategies
and building codes.
An ASCE 41-13 seismic evaluation is the first step toward earthquake hazard mitigation. Evaluation
findings will be used to plan, design, fund and construct needed seismic retrofit projects.
2-Year Objectives
• Seismic evaluations, per the
current standards of FEMA-
178 and ASCE 41-13, Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings.
5-Year Objectives
• Identify funding for planning,
design and construction of all
needed seismic retrofit
measures.
Long-Term Objectives
• Seismic retrofit to
meet or exceed
current standards of
protection.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Pre-Application submitted to Washington Emergency Management Division for a 2020 FEMA
Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant for Advance Assistance.
• Draft and release RFP for complete building seismic evaluation.
• Based on evaluation findings and available funding, plan and budget building retrofit work and/or
apply for future FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure & Communities to fund seismic retrofit.
Performance Measure
• Achievement of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Advance Assistance grant, or feedback from WA EMD
on strength of application, achievement of assessment in 2 years, achievement of retrofit project
funding in 5 years.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
258
Integrate ESJ into Mitigation, Response, and Recovery Activities
Lead
Preparedness
Senior Manager
Partners
Office of Equity and Social
Justice, Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Goal 2, 6, 10, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Funding
Vision
King County Emergency Management considers impacts and benefits to populations more likely to
suffer damage or long recovery times during disaster mitigation, response, and recovery activities.
Description
Vulnerable populations, defined here as those more likely to suffer losses during disasters and recover
more slowly afterward, should be a primary focus of an emergency management program. This is fully
consistent with our charge of identifying and addressing the greatest sources of vulnerability. As part
of this strategy, King County Emergency Management will identify vulnerable areas and develop
action plans to ensure that populations more likely to suffer damage are prioritized in accordance with
need. This includes prioritized mitigation projects to reduce risks, identification and prioritization of
resources during response, and additional support and assistance to increase resilience and reduce
recovery times after a disaster.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop a geospatial
tool to ensure that
resources are distributed
equitably and according
to need.
5-Year Objectives
• Implement prioritized
mitigation strategies
benefitting populations
more vulnerable to hazards.
Long-Term Objectives
• Emergency management
activities are prioritized
according to a comprehensive
understanding of vulnerability
and need.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Expand identification sources of population vulnerability and likely impacts to vulnerable
populations from different hazards.
• Use identified priority languages to expand outreach and notification capabilities.
• Compile a database of infrastructure vulnerability/inequity for use in mitigation, response, and
recovery planning activities by working with KC GIS.
• Increase outreach in priority areas with vulnerable populations by engaging with community
partners through the preparedness program. Potentially mimic Seattle’s Ambassadors program.
• Include insurance information in preparedness outreach.
• Build a geospatial tool to track impacts and resource delivery during disaster response activities
and develop ESJ objectives for EOC operations.
• Develop SOPs for use during activations that ensure staff consider population vulnerability with
or without requests from communities. Consider creating an ESJ-specific position or ESJ-specific
position responsibilities for work within the EOC.
• Work with county agency partners to prioritize projects that reduce risk in areas with vulnerable
populations (as defined in this plan), including through planning efforts such as subarea plans.
• Develop an infrastructure equity map.
• Develop a hazard vulnerability component map to use in comprehensive planning.
• Crosswalk climate risk and population vulnerability with SCAP actions.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
259
Performance Measure
• # mitigation projects specifically benefitting vulnerable communities/populations
• KCEM did/did not identify potential needs in vulnerable communities, regardless of resource
requests received from those communities.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
260
Seismic Lifeline Route Resilience
Lead
KC EM
Partners
DLS
PHSKC
FMD
DNRP
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake /
Goal 4
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
FEMA HMA
General Fund
Vision
King County is able to conduct life-safety response and recovery operations throughout the county
following a catastrophic Cascadia Subduction Zone or Seattle Fault earthquake.
Description
Following a major earthquake, at least three-quarters of all state-managed bridges will be inoperable
for at least one-three months. This threatens the ability of responders to conduct life safety
operations, for life saving resources to be distributed, and for communities to begin to transition to
recovery. This strategy will build on state and federal assessments of transportation vulnerability to
identify regional lifeline routes for King County and prioritize vulnerable segments for mitigation
investments.
2-Year Objectives
• Convene a multiagency
committee to develop a strategy
• Identify potential lifeline routes
and route vulnerabilities.
5-Year Objectives
• Develop a prioritized list of
lifeline routes and submit to
the Executive and Council
Long-Term Objectives
• Develop, maintain,
and expand the
resilient transportation
lifeline.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• KC EM will work with WSDOT, DLS, and others to review the completed RRAP for critical
transportation and to identify potential seismic lifeline routes. Work with UW to verify RRAP
results.
• Based on identified lifeline routes, identify necessary mitigation to protect and expand those
routes.
• Prioritize investments based in part on population vulnerability and likelihood of self-sustaining
for a longer period of time.
• Continue this effort through the strategy identified by King County Roads to retrofit seismically-
vulnerable bridges.
Performance Measure
• Lifeline routes are identified
• # projects completed to strengthen the seismic lifeline routes
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
261
Integrate Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Planning
Lead
KC EM
Partners
Office of the Executive
DLS
PSRC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 12
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Comprehensive planning and regional initiatives like Vision 2050 account for hazard risk and the role
that development patterns and climate change play in increasing hazard risk. These plans adopt
policies and land use patterns designed to limit hazard risk.
Description
The most cost-effective mitigation measures are those that prevent the creation of risk through codes
and development standards. At present, hazards are barely mentioned in most countywide/region
wide planning documents. This strategy seeks to increase the integration between mitigation, response,
and recovery concerns and major land-use policies and plans, including the Growth Management Act,
PSRC Visions, and the Comprehensive Plan.
2-Year Objectives
• Provide comments on Vision
2050 updates.
• Provide feedback on 2020
Comp Plan policies
5-Year Objectives
• Fully participate in the next
major update of the
comprehensive plan, ensuring
hazard risk and risk reduction
is represented throughout.
Long-Term Objectives
• Integrate hazards into
desired planning and
development
outcomes.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work with planning agencies to identify a list of areas where hazard information would be helpful
in designing good policies.
• Socialize the concept of integrating hazard mitigation and comprehensive planning by attending
regional meetings around the GMA and Comprehensive Plan as well as of City Manager and
Planning Director groups.
• Look into developing a land-use tool platform similar to Colorado’s planningforhazards.com page
and that identifies tools that can be used to reduce hazard risk, such as purchase of development
rights.
• Add hazard mitigation policies and strategies to the King County countywide planning policies to
be updated in 2020.
• Integrate concepts of social vulnerability into comprehensive planning efforts in order to promote
the use of comprehensive planning to both reduce hazard risk and build equity.
• Participate in WA Commerce and FEMA-led activities on how to consider hazards in
comprehensive planning.
Performance Measure
• # of countywide planning policies addressing natural and manmade hazards.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
262
Engage Community Organizations in Emergency Management
Lead
KC EM
Partners
Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 12
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Increase the participation of communities to identify local preparedness priorities and opportunities to
do hazard mitigation, risk prevention, and community preparedness activities through the creation of
“community resiliency networks” using a model similar to the Public Health community health
networks. Use feedback from these community groups to influence response planning and
prioritization, including for catastrophic response and recovery planning.
Description
Emergency planning typically underutilizes existing community capabilities and undervalues the
resilience built into many communities, especially those that are marginally represented or of lower-
income. Examples from around the country point out that a partnership with individuals and
organizations from these communities a can result in better emergency management, reduced risk, aid
in more rapid recovery, and even improve day-to-day quality of life indicators. King County
Emergency Management will partner with other agencies to work more closely with communities to
identify opportunities to strengthen the 14 Determinants of Equity through mitigation, establish
response needs, recovery priorities, and account for community capabilities that can be valuable
during disasters.
2-Year Objectives
• Bring together agencies to identify
potential community partners for
emergency management.
• Complete a community capability map.
• Complete an infrastructure equity map.
5-Year Objectives
• Establish community
priorities for each
mission area and
ensure those priorities
are executed through
plans and actions.
Long-Term Objectives
• Sustain a community
equity in emergency
management coalition.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Develop tools to identify areas of inequity in emergency management, including for outreach,
language support, and the quality of public infrastructure and services that may be damaged during
a disaster.
• Investigate developing a community equity committee for emergency management similar to
those used by King County Parks and Metro.
• Work with Public Health SKC and other agency partners to expand the Trusted Partners Network
identify potential community organization partners with whom KC EM could engage to learn
more about capabilities and gaps.
• Record community-identified mitigation and preparedness priorities and invest in them.
Performance Measure
• King County Emergency Management has prioritized/carried out # of community-identified
actions.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
263
Climate Integration Training
Lead
KC EM
Partners
DNRP
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Staff Time
Vision
All jurisdictions consider climate and climate-induced hazard impacts in their planning.
Description
The King County Hazard Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a framework for local and
regional action to reduce the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards in King County. Many of
the natural hazards covered in the Plan, including flooding, wildfire, and landslides, are exacerbated by
climate change. Building from work initiated in the 2019-20 Plan update, the Office of Emergency
Management will host trainings with partner jurisdictions on incorporating climate change into hazard
mitigation. The trainings will include information on how climate change affects natural hazards in
King County; how to evaluate and adjust hazard mitigation strategies to account for climate impacts,
including the potential for disproportionate impacts on frontline communities; and best practices for
sharing information about climate risks with the public.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop training
plan/curriculum
• Conduct training
5-Year Objectives
• Host periodic trainings and
integrate climate
considerations into classes or
seminars on wildfires, severe
weather, and planning.
Long-Term Objectives
• N/A
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work with SCAP team to develop climate planning training curriculum.
• Identify and schedule opportunities to host climate trainings for King County and constituent
jurisdictions.
• Host trainings during mitigation plan update meetings, winter weather seminars, wildfire seminars,
and other related opportunities that bring local and county staff together to discuss hazards that
are impacted by climate change.
Performance Measure
• # trainings hosted
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
264
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training
Lead
KCEM Public
Outreach
Program Manager
Partners
Community Outreach
Workgroup
Zone Coordinators
King County Libraries
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Goal 6
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
EMPG, UASI, SHSP
Vision
King County Emergency Management delivers the county’s disaster education, and provides year-
round free training and education to county employees, residents, and organizations/businesses via
several programs and activities aimed at promoting personal and community risk reduction.
Description
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training will provide education on natural and man-made hazards that
are present and could occur in King County and ways to mitigate and reduce impacts in addition to
increase community disaster preparedness, self-sufficiency, and protection of property.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete one Basic Disaster
Skills Trainings (General
Preparedness/Risk Reduction)
within each
jurisdictions/unincorporated
area in King County.
• Train at least 1,500 residents
through Basic Disaster Skills
Trainings and MYN Facilitator
Trainings.
5-Year Objectives
• Complete Advanced Disaster
Skills Trainings (Fire Safety &
Bleeding Control) within each
jurisdictions/unincorporated
area in King County.
• Train at least 2,500 residents
in advanced skills such as fire
extinguisher and bleeding
control
• Train at least 50 individuals to
serve as instructors for their
respective organization,
community, department, or
jurisdiction.
Long-Term Objectives
• Maintain consistent
outreach to high-risk
communities.
• Maintain consistent
advanced disaster
skills risk reduction
trainings.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Hold two trainings a month at the King County Libraries or with local jurisdictions
• Connect with the Seattle King County Public Health Ethnic-centric boards and ESJ newsletter for
trusted partners to support sharing events and training opportunities.
• Hold four quarterly workshops for public educators to provide continuing education for
community engagement specialists and public education and outreach coordinators.
• Modify outreach efforts to mirror need so that 80% of outreach goes to the 20% of the
population at highest risk.
• Look into partnering with public health to teach post-disaster environmental health risk reduction
skills, including emergency drinking water, toxin exposure reduction, etc.
Performance Measure
• Using sign-in sheets, keep track of how many individuals are attending Basic and Advanced
trainings
• Social Media hits
• Ethnic social media connections
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
265
Dam Failure Risk and Impact Reduction
Lead
KC EM Dam
Safety Program
Coordinator
Partners
DNRP, WLRD
DNRP, Rivers
WA Depot of Ecology,
Dam Safety Office
WRIA 8
WRIA 7
Salmon Recovery Funding
Board
Tribes
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Dam Failure /
Goal 5
Goal 6
Goal 12
Goal 14
Supplemental Goal 15
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Rehabilitation of
High Hazard Potential
Dam Grant Program
King County Flood
Control District
FMA
PDM
Various Salmon &
Environment Recovery
Grants
Vision
Lower the risk and impacts of dam failure in King County.
Description
Washington State Dam Safety Office will identify high and significant hazard dams that are in poor
condition. King County will gather information from other sources about low hazard dams of interest.
King County will assist in seeking alternative funding structures to lower the risk of failure.
Additionally, King County will seek alternative funding structures to decommission identified dams
that threaten environmental resources. Lastly, resources will be sought to strengthen the integrity and
security of high and significant hazard dams in the County that are not feasible to remove.
2-Year Objectives
Identify dams in King County that
are assessed to be in poor condition
by the Washington State DSO and
identify funding structures to
mitigate their risk. Begin dam
removal projects.
5-Year Objectives
Eliminate the risk associated with
all dams in the County assessed to
be in poor condition by the
Washington State DSO.
Long-Term Objectives
Decommission dams that
have outlived their
functional use, but still
remain operational and
pose a threat to the
County.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Washington State DSO will identify poor condition dams in the County and rely them to KCEM.
• KCEM will work with DNRP, local jurisdictions, and tribes to identify potential
funding/mitigation strategies.
• Ensure vulnerable populations are accounted for in outreach and risk assessments.
• Where applicable, KCEM will assist in grant application development and administration.
Performance Measure
• Number of mitigation actions for high hazard and significant dams that are in poor condition
dams.
• Number of dams removed.
• Number of dams with lowered hazard classification through mitigation actions.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
266
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction
Lead
KC EM,
Hazard Mitigation
Partners
DNRP, WLRD, DNRP,
Parks, DLS, Permitting
KC Fire Districts, WA
DNR, King Conservation
District, Tribes, USFS, KC
Climate Preparedness
Public Health Seattle-KC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Wildfire /
Goal 3
Goal 5
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Resources
Vision
As King County grows, and awareness of climate change-driven wildfire risk grows, King County has
a coordinated strategy to support individuals and local jurisdictions in identifying and managing
wildfire risk, including risk to property and public health.
Description
Partner with King County communities, fire districts, and other organizations to develop an integrated
King County strategy for wildfire. The strategy will review current efforts to address wildfire risk in
King County and develop recommendations for addressing identified gaps and opportunities. These
recommendations will be carried out through a coordinated Firewise technical assistance program,
likely led by DNRP. This effort will be coordinated with a SCAP action seeking a similar outcome.
This strategy will be based in part on the results of WA DNR effort to map the Wildland Urban
Interface in King County.
2-Year Objectives
• Convene a multiagency
committee to develop a strategy
• Request funding for outreach
5-Year Objectives
• Implement the strategy
through coordinated technical
assistance between the county
and local communities
Long-Term Objectives
• Maintain consistent
outreach to
potentially-impacted
communities.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• KC EM will work with DNRP, WLRD and the Climate Preparedness team to identify partners.
• Continue to partner with WA DNR and DLS to map WUI areas – ultimately use this map to
target strategy priorities.
• Socialize results of WUI mapping efforts with comprehensive plan staff and look into planning
policies that could limit density or development in fire-prone areas.
• Convene multiagency committee once WA DNR WUI maps are closer to being finalized
• Identify existing preparedness actions and gaps, including areas that are/are not receiving Firewise
outreach and support.
• Develop wildfire preparedness and mitigation coordination strategy and socialize it.
• DNRP to request $150k funding for an additional FTE to support Firewise efforts.
• Look into model codes, ordinances, or other strategies to promote in addition to Firewise.
• Host an annual tabletop at the wildfire workshop held each year by KCEM.
Performance Measure
• KC EM was successful/not successful in convening all the necessary partners to establish a
unified strategy for community wildfire preparedness and risk reduction.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
267
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Support
Lead
KC EM
Partners
WA EMD
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 10
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants go to the communities and projects most needed and more
effective at reducing risk, regardless of a community’s internal capacity to administer federal grants.
Description
With the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) in 2018, the amount of federal grant
funding for hazard mitigation will top $300-700 million annually, at least a 3-fold increase over historical
averages. For 2019, grants of up to $4 million, federal cost-share, will be available. The experience-
barrier to seeking these grants has prevented jurisdictions and county departments from applying. King
County Emergency Management is establishing a grant assistance program to lower these barriers by
providing support in administering FEMA grants.
To pay for this service, King County will leverage local management costs, provided to grant
recipients.
2-Year Objectives
• Publish assistance guidelines
and implement at least one test
case.
5-Year Objectives
• Expand local capacity to
administer grants.
• Expand KC EM capacity to
support on application
development
Long-Term Objectives
• Communities that
need grants
consistently are able to
seek them, regardless
of internal capacity.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Administer FEMA grants - King County will administer grants, to include submitting
reimbursements and documentation, completing quarterly reports, and managing grant kickoff
and closeout.
• Provide application technical assistance - King County will, as time allows, provide support and
technical assistance in developing applications. Jurisdictions will take the lead in application
development. King County may provide more support in the future.
• Establish a process to collect documentation and reimburse expenditures - King County will
establish a process to identify and track expenditures, and collect documentation necessary for
submission to FEMA and the State. King County will work with partners to ensure this process is
clear and straightforward.
• Develop an interlocal agreement process - King County will develop and establish an internal sub-
award agreement process that lays out expectations for both parties in successfully administering
the grants and completing mitigation projects.
• Look into other fund sources post-disaster and accelerate projects like flooded home buyouts
before rebuilding occurs.
Performance Measure
• # Grants administered on behalf of other agencies/communities.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
268
Public Assistance Grant Support
Lead
KCEM Business
& Finance
Officer
Partners
King County Public
Assistance Team
membership
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
All
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA 406 Mitigation
Vision
Post-Disaster Recovery following a Presidentially Declared Disaster will include taking full advantage
of the utilization of 406 Hazard Mitigation funding made available exclusively to eligible agencies
within a qualifying jurisdiction.
Description
The federal Public Assistance (PA) Disaster Recovery Grant Program supports governmental and
government-type agencies recovery from major disaster declared by the President. While billions of
PA grants are provided and provide significant support to recovering agencies; mitigating future
occurrences of similar nature supports and strengthens resiliency on a long-term basis. The
recognition of this is carried out through the provision of 406 Hazard Mitigation funds which are only
available to agencies to mitigate damages suffered from a Presidentially Declared Disaster. These
funds are added to Project Worksheets for PA Grant funds. King County Emergency Management
serves as the County’s Applicant Agent for PA and oversees the disaster financial recovery efforts for
King County government agencies. This strategy seeks to increase the number of 406 Hazard
Mitigation projects added to Public Worksheets to increase King County government resilience in all
county agencies.
2-Year Objectives
• Provide the KC PA Team
(KCPAT) education and
outreach on the 406 Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.
• 50% of all impacted eligible
KC government agencies
will identify at least one
mitigation project for each
PA PWs to mitigate/
prevent/eliminate future
damage directly attributable
to the declared disaster.
5-Year Objectives
• 75% of all impacted eligible
KC government agencies will
identify at least one
mitigation project for each
PA Project Worksheet to
mitigate/prevent/eliminate
future damage directly
attributable to the declared
disaster.
Long-Term Objectives
• 95% of all impacted
eligible KC government
agencies will identify at
least one mitigation project
for each PA Project
Worksheet to
mitigate/prevent/eliminate
the damage directly
attributable to the declared
disaster.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Prepare training materials on 406 Hazard Mitigation Program
• Conduct trainings for the King County Public Assistance Team
• DNRP will train operations and engineering staff in the assessment of earthquake damaged
facilities. A WTD specific ATC- 20 class will be conducted in early 2020 for operations and
engineering staff. Response guides and ATC-20 placards for post-earthquake inspection and
FEMA cost tracking forms are being placed in all offsite facilities.
• Develop a KCPAT Disaster Recovery Financial Management Plan
• Develop KCPAT Disaster Recovery Profiles
• Represent and support each KCPAT agency during post-disaster recovery process
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
269
• Work with each impacted agency during a declared disaster to identify eligible 406 HM project(s)
Performance Measure
• # of KCPAT members receiving training/outreach
• # of 406 Hazard Mitigation Projects funded
• % of Impacted King County government agencies receiving a 406 Hazard Mitigation Project
• Identify local cost-share opportunities, including the flood control district.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
270
Language Accessible Video Emergency Messaging
Lead
Risk Communications
Specialist
Public Health Seattle & King
County, Office of the Director
Partners
King County
OEM
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All-Hazards
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$100,000 +
Vision
Increase the inventory of pre-scripted and translated language accessible materials for public health
emergencies to aid in the rapid dissemination of public information and warning for all-hazards. Using
audio-video media, increase the reach of emergency messaging for individuals with English as a
second-language and persons who use American Sign Language (ASL).
Description
28.5% of King County citizens are speakers of a non-English language and in some local language
communities, there is also a low rate of literacy in the spoken language. This mitigation strategy aims
to develop language accessible materials in an audio-video format to assist in public information and
warning for known hazards within King County. By providing emergency messaging in an audio-video
format, King County will be able to provide equitable access to culturally appropriate emergency
messaging for individuals who do not read (in English or in their spoken language) and individuals
with language access needs (including individuals who speak American Sign Language). This
mitigation strategy will aid in the rapid dissemination via web and social media of critical life-
safety/risk reduction emergency messaging to all persons present in King County in the event of an
emergency.
2-Year Objectives
• Secure videographer
• Secure and train ASL
interpreter service and
spokespeople from language
communities
• Develop language accessible
emergency messaging using
audio-video format
• Conduct trial runs for language
accessible emergency messaging
5-Year Objectives
• Implement language
accessible emergency
messaging for public use
• Conduct public awareness
campaign to socialize language
accessible emergency
messaging
Long-Term Objectives
• Reduce delays in
issuing language
accessible/translated
emergency messaging
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Identify, script, and translate/transcreate emergency messaging for key hazards
• Issue request for proposals for content videographer and interpreter services (including American
Sign Language)
• Film and produce language accessible emergency messaging content
• Engage communities in review and testing of language accessible emergency messaging
• Implement language accessible emergency messaging for public use and dissemination
• Conduct public awareness campaign to socialize language accessible emergency messaging
• Develop a social media strategy to support the accessible video tools.
Performance Measure
• Time for issuance/public broadcasting of language accessible emergency messaging during
emergency activation(s)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
271
King County Facilities Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Network
Lead
Environmental Health
Emergency Response Planner
Public Health – Seattle &
King County
Partners
King County
Facilities
Maintenance
Division
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Wildfire Smoke
Goal 2, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$100,000
Vision
Develop and implement network of indoor air quality monitoring devices in King County operated
facilities to ensure the health and safety of King County employees during periods of poor air quality
due to wildfire smoke inundation.
Description
Procure and deploy 280 Dylos DC1100 true laser particle counters (indoor air quality monitors) across
28 facilities owned and/or managed by King County to aid in continuity of operation decision making
during periods of poor air quality during wildfire smoke events. Indoor air quality network would
enable the county to make informed decisions regarding the health and safety of employees working
in county owned/managed facilities and base facility closure decisions along established state
recommended action thresholds for PM2.5 levels. The Dylos DC1100 systems are portable units that
run at an estimated cost of $260.99 per unit and have the capability of relaying recorded PM levels to a
central computer for active indoor air quality monitoring via integrated system telemetry.
2-Year Objectives
• Procurement of Dylos DC1100
indoor air quality monitors
• Deployment of Dylos DC 1100
indoor air quality monitors
across 28 king county
owned/managed facilities
• Establishment of centralized
computer telemetry system for
active monitoring of indoor air
quality network
• Increase situational awareness
regarding indoor air quality of
King County facilities during
wildfire smoke events
5-Year Objectives
• Assess indoor air quality
performance of King County
facilities during wildfire smoke
events
• Identify mitigation strategies
to further improve indoor air
quality of King County
facilities during wildfire smoke
events
• Improve the overall indoor air
quality performance of King
County facilities during
wildfire smoke events
Long-Term Objectives
• Increase situational
awareness regarding
indoor air quality of
King County facilities
during wildfire smoke
events
• Increase the overall air
quality performance
of King County
facilities during
wildfire smoke events
to aid in maintaining
continuity of
operations during
periods of poor air
quality
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
272
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Procurement of Dylos DC1100 indoor air quality monitors
• Deployment of Dylos DC1100 indoor air quality monitors across 28 King County Facilities
• Establish centralized computer telemetry system for active monitoring of indoor air quality
monitoring network
• Assess the performance of each King County facility during periods of poor air quality due to
wildfire smoke
• Determine if facility closures are warranted based upon state recommended air quality action
thresholds during periods of wildfire smoke inundation
• Identify subsequent indoor air quality mitigation recommendations for improving facility
performance during wildfire smoke events
Performance Measure
• Prioritization of facilities warranting further indoor air quality mitigation actions to improve
performance during periods of poor outdoor air quality
• Development of indoor air quality mitigation recommendations for prioritized facilities
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
273
Medical Gas Seismic Detection & Emergency Shut Off
Lead
PHSKC –
Environmental
Health Services
Division,
Community
Environmental
Health Section
Partners
Harborview Medical Center
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 2, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
≤$500,000
Vision
Reduce the disruption to level 1 trauma centers in King County following the event of a large
earthquake by retrofitting level 1 trauma centers with medical gas seismic detection and emergency
shut off systems.
Description
Harborview Medical Center is the only level 1 trauma center within King County and the State of
Washington. In the event of a large earthquake impacting the Puget Sound region, disruptions to
medical gas piping and delivery systems can significantly increase the recovery time to resume
operations. This strategy proposes retrofitting the medical gas piping and delivery systems with early
warning seismic detection and emergency shut off valves in order to increase the capability of rapid
restoration of medical services following the event of a large earthquake in order to expedite the
restoration of life saving operational capacity.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund feasibility study
• Select consultants to complete
study
5-Year Objectives
• Update medical gas piping
and plumbing code to require
seismic detection and
emergency shut off valves for
Level 1 trauma centers.
Long-Term Objectives
• Expedite the
restoration of critical
life-saving operational
capacity for trauma
centers with a level 1
designation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Allocate funding to conduct a feasibility study for seismic detection and emergency shut off valve
upgrades for level 1 trauma centers in King County
• Issue Request for Proposal to contract conduct of feasibility study
• Biased upon findings of feasibility study, update medical gas piping and plumbing code to require
seismic detection and emergency shut off valves for medical gases for level 1 trauma centers.
Performance Measure
• Completion of a feasibility study assessing cost-benefit outcome for seismic detection and
emergency shut off valve system upgrades
• Update medical gas piping and plumbing code to require seismic detection and emergency shut
off valves for level 1 trauma centers.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 1
City of Renton Plan Annex
Introduction
Brief History
Originally an important fishing area for Native Americans, Renton
experienced a migration of 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 surrounding hills.
In 1911 a major flood provided the impetus for diverting the
channel of the Cedar River to prevent future flooding in the city.
The building of the Renton Boeing plant during World War II
brought thousands to Renton for jobs. Renton is also home to
several other major corporations and important regional
government facilities.
Climate
The climate of Renton is moderate, with mild winters, averaging
154 precipitation days per year, and warm, dry summers. Annual
temperatures range from 37 to 78 degrees, rarely going below 28
degrees or above 87 degrees. Annual rainfall is 38 inches. 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.
Development Trends
Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. Industrial and
commercial uses are located primarily in the Green River valley and
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, where most residential growth is still occurring.
In addition, there are pockets of mixed-use commercial centers aimed
at providing services for residents 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. This
infill has increased the number of residents living in the 500 year flood
plain of the Cedar River.
Renton’s language diversity continues to increase, which creates
additional challenges in communicating risk to the population.
City of Renton Profile
Date of Incorporation:
9/6/1901
Governance: Optional
municipal code city governed
by a Mayor/Council form of
government
Population as of 4/1/2019:
104,700
Area: 24 square miles
Location and Description:
Western Washington State,
Central Puget Sound, south
King County
Jurisdiction Point of Contact:
Name: Deborah Needham
Title: Emergency Management
Director
Entity: City of Renton
Phone: 425-430-7725
Email: dneedham@rentonwa.gov
Plan Prepared By:
Name: Deborah Needham
Title: Emergency Management
Director
Entity: City of Renton
Phone: 425-430-7725
Email: dneedham@rentonwa.gov
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 2
City of Renton Risk Summary
Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Summary
HAZARD RISK SUMMARY VULNERABILITY SUMMARY IMPACT SUMMARY
Avalanche n/a n/a n/a
Dam
Failure
There are two major
dams on the Green
River and Cedar River
respectively, and
numerous levees along
both rivers. A failure
of either a dam or a
levee would cause
severe flooding not
seen since the two
dams were built. A
dam failure with a full-
pool scenario will
likely be much more
severe than a typical
flooding scenario.
Renton is near or at the end of the
drainage basin for the Green River
and the Cedar River. As a relatively
low-lying area, it becomes the
collector for floodwaters along those
rivers. The Green River Valley is a
thriving commercial and industrial
area. The area around the Cedar
River is primarily developed as
residential. There are schools and
several senior residential
communities in the floodplain.
There is great potential for loss of
life for those not able to evacuate
ahead of the flood waters.
In the Green River Valley
hundreds of millions dollars of
real property would be
destroyed in in Renton,
primarily businesses, causing
them to permanently close
their doors, with a loss of
revenue for the city. A Chester
Morse Dam failure on the
Cedar River would destroy
hundreds of millions dollars of
mostly residential property,
leaving many homeless.
Earthquake The city is subject to a
major earthquake
generated by the
Seattle Fault to the
north, and the
Cascadia Subduction
Zone offshore to the
west, which is capable
of generating an
earthquake in the 8.0-
9.0 range. Additional
minor faults may
generate smaller
earthquakes, and faults
further away can still
cause damage.
Much of the historic downtown area
is comprised of unreinforced
masonry (URM) buildings that are
vulnerable to collapse and present a
life safety hazard. Most of Renton’s
commercial development, including
the historic downtown, is built on
soils with high liquefaction risk.
Many homes were built before
seismic code was changed
acknowledge the seismic risk of the
area, which will lead to extensive
damage of many structures.
The city was damaged in 1965
from the 6.7 Puget Sound
quake, with severe damage to
the Boeing plant. In 2001 the
city was again damaged by the
6.8 Nisqually quake, primarily
cracked masonry and
collapsed chimneys, but with
no deaths in Renton. More
structures and residents are at
risk today because of
multifamily infill development
in the liquefaction zone.
Flood Much of Renton’s
commercial and
institutional
development is
located within the
floodplain of either
the Green River or
Cedar River, and a
considerable amount
of residential
development within
the Cedar River
floodplain. 6.35% of
the total land area of
the city is within the
Renton is near or at the end of the
drainage basin for the Green River
and the Cedar River. As a relatively
low-lying area, it becomes the
collector for floodwaters along those
rivers. The Green River Valley is a
thriving commercial and industrial
area. The annual risk of a
catastrophic flood in that area is
1:140. The area around the Cedar
River is primarily developed as
residential. There are schools and
several senior residential
communities in the 100 year
floodplain, as well as the city’s
In the last two decades, the
city has experienced repeated
moderate flood events causing
nearly $22 million in damages
and response costs. As climate
change and development has
changed the floodplain, more
structures are thought to be at
risk to a similar event today.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3
Special Flood Hazard
Area. The city has
good floodplain
management
regulations and has
limited development;
however, there are
many structures
already present in the
floodplain.
largest employer. The historic
downtown area is located within the
500 year flood plain.
Landslide/
Sinkholes/
Ground
subsidence
Areas of steep slopes
and high erosion
hazard can be found
throughout the city.
As a former coal-
mining town, many
abandoned coal mines
criss-cross the
underground
landscape. There is a
high water table and
some of the city’s soil
types are known to be
prone to landslide or
subsidence.
Some landslide prone areas had
already been developed prior to
institution of stricter regulations.
The Maple Valley Highway has
experienced repetitive landslide
issues that have forced its closure at
times. Smaller landslides occur more
regularly in other areas of the city.
Sinkholes in roadways and pipeline
right-of-ways have occurred within
the past five years compromising
public safety.
Climate change predictions
include shifting rainfall
patterns to include greater
bursts in short periods,
increasing the landslide risk
over time. As soils continue to
settle, there will likely be an
increase in the frequency of
sinkhole formation and coal
mine collapse, which can be
related.
Severe
Weather
Tornados are rare in
this region, but the
city is prone to
damaging high winds
during seasonal
storms. Trees
frequently fall during
such storms. Some
neighborhoods are
built entirely within
large stands of tall
trees. Lightning
storms create
additional risk of fire.
High summer
temperatures cause
health problems for
those without air-
conditioning, and
drought is a potential
consequence.
The majority of power lines in
Renton are overhead rather than
underground. Wind damage often
results in power outages and road
closures due to falling trees. Due to
the usually mild summers, many
homes in Renton do not have air-
conditioning, increasing health risks
for vulnerable individuals. Many also
do not have basements in which to
take refuge from a rare tornado
event.
Over time, the increasing
average annual temperature
will create additional health
risks due to extreme heat, and
generate an increase in
thunderstorm activity with
lightning/wildfire risk and
localized high winds, including
tornado potential. The risk of
drought could impact the
city’s water supply which is
98% dependent upon
groundwater sources (wells
and springs). Seattle Public
Utilities provides
approximately 2% of the city’s
water supply. The City’s
Water Utility supplies water
to73% of the total city area.
The remaining 27% of the
area within the City is served
by adjacent water districts
(Soos Creek Water and Sewer
District, Water District #90
and others).
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 4
Severe
Winter
Weather
The local Renton
climate produces a
significant snowfall or
ice event every few
years. Freezing
temperatures are not
uncommon for several
days in the winter,
although prolonged
hard freezes in the
20’s or below are rare.
The majority of power lines in
Renton are overhead rather than
underground. Snow and ice damage
often results in power outages and
blocked roads from fallen trees.
Hazardous driving conditions cause
accidents. Businesses suffer
economic losses. People can be
housebound for days, compromising
the ability to get food,
pharmaceuticals, and medical care.
Freezing temperatures can result in
broken pipes to residents and
businesses, which interrupts
sprinkler fire protection systems for
some buildings. In a significant snow
or ice event, roof collapse can
become a risk. For the homeless
populations, life safety is at stake if
they cannot take shelter during cold
weather.
Severe winter weather will
continue to recur, causing
transportation disruption,
personal injury, economic
injury, and property damage.
Tsunami n/a n/a n/a
Volcano Although the city is
outside of a direct
lahar flow from any
volcano, secondary
flooding on the Green
River could be the
result of a Mt. Rainier
eruption. Rainier, and
potentially other area
volcanoes, depending
on wind direction, can
generate ashfall that
significantly impacts
the City of Renton.
Ashfall causes premature wear and
failure of automobile engines and
electronics. It disrupts air travel,
shorts out electricity on power lines
causing widespread power outages,
clogs gutters and causes property
damage, accumulates on flat roofs
creating roof collapse risk, creates
slippery road surfaces resulting in
traffic accidents, and triggers
significant health issues in vulnerable
individuals.
The risk of an ashfall event
from the nearest volcano, Mt.
Rainier, remains constant over
time. The power outages,
damage to homes and
businesses, compromised
automobiles and electronics,
and health risks to some
residents would have a
significant impact on the city.
Wildfire Power lines, railroad
cars, structure fires,
lightning, and human
behavior can start fires
anywhere. Parts of the
City of Renton are
heavily treed or
covered in brush, and
some are in the
Wildland/Urban
Interface putting
residents and
businesses there even
more at risk.
Some areas of Renton have poor
evacuation options and limited
access for fire apparatus. A wind-
driven structure fire like the Regency
Woods apartment fire of 2004 can
rapidly engulf neighboring homes,
trapping residents in areas without
sufficient road capacity to handle an
evacuation, and threatening critical
electrical infrastructure.
As climate change generates
higher average temperatures
annually and increased
drought risk, the fire danger
for Western Washington is
increasing. Climatologist
predict that eventually
Western Washington fire risk
will equal that of Eastern
Washington.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 5
Hazard and Asset Overview Maps
Figure 1: Composite hazard map of Renton.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6
Figure 2: Earthquake liquefaction susceptibility.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 7
Figure 3: Flood hazard areas in the mapped floodplains.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 8
Figure 4: Known landslide hazard areas.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 9
Figure 5: Known coal mine hazard areas.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 10
Plan Update Process
To convene the planning team, the city expanded the existing Emergency Management Group’s membership,
which has representation from each department and the Renton Regional Fire Authority. The invitation included
neighboring water utilities and additional stakeholders and subject matter experts who could contribute to the
plan.
The planning process began with some staff attending the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan kickoff meeting
and workshops. The planning team met twice in joint work sessions to review assets and infrastructure, to
determine threats and assess risk, and to identify mitigation solutions to reduce those risks. Planning team
members then worked outside of the group session to develop the mitigation strategies that are included in this
plan revision.
Jurisdiction Planning Team
NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTION
Deborah
Needham
Emergency
Management Director
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jillian Edge Emergency
Management
Coordinator
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Amy Shaffer Court Services
Supervisor
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Al Findlay Building Plan Reviewer City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Dave Neubert Communications
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Krista Kolaz Risk Management
Analyst
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Mehdi Sadri IT Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jennifer Henning Planning Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Katie Nolan Civil Engineer III City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Ron Straka Utility Systems Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jason Anderson Assistant Airport
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Harry Barrett Airport Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Will Adams Civil Engineer II City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Robert Homan Battalion Chief Renton Regional
Fire Authority
Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Eric Cutshall Transportation
Maintenance Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Cailin Hunsaker Parks & Trails Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Alex Tuttle Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Tim Moore GIS Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 11
Vangie Garcia Transportation Planning
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Maryjane Van
Cleave
Recreation &
Neighborhoods
Director
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
George Stahl Water Maintenance
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Patrick Zellner Street Maintenance
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Richard Marshall Surface Water/Waste
Water Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Tim Moore GIS Manager City of Renton Mapping support for strategy
discussion
Kelsey Ternes Risk Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Gary Del Rosario GIS Analyst II City of Renton Map production for open house and
plan
Dan Gravelle Water/Sewer
Technician
Coal Creek Utility
District
Participate in strategy discussions
Steve Moye Water/Sewer
Technician
Coal Creek Utility
District
Participate in strategy discussions
Darcy Peterson General Manager King County Water
District 90
Participate in strategy discussions
Plan Update Timeline
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Hazard Mitigation
Risk Assessments
12/13/2018 Joint development of
risk assessments
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, Coal Creek Utility District, Kent,
KC Water District 90, King County,
Newcastle, Puget Sound Fire, Renton School
District, Soos Creek Water and Sewer
District, Tukwila, Valley Medical Center, and
others in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Annex Kickoff
4/17/2019 Orientation to
planning process and
partner expectations
Renton and neighbors/partners: King
County, Skyway Water and Sewer, and others
in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Support
Meeting
6/10/2019 Guidance on plan
development,
organization, and
narratives
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, King County, Skyway Water and
Sewer, and others in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Strategy Workshop
7/25/2019 Guidance on
development of
strategy worksheets
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, Coal Creek Utility District, FEMA,
KC Water District 90, King County, Puget
Sound Fire, Renton School District, Tukwila,
WA Dept. of Ecology, WA Dept. of Natural
Resources, WA State Emergency
Management, and others in the region
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Workshop
8/1/2019 Risk assessment,
hazard identification
and introduction of
strategy worksheets
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 12
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Meeting
9/5/2019 Strategy worksheet
development and
prioritization
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
Breakout sessions of
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group as
needed
9/6/2019-
9/27/2019
Reference and
integrate with other
plans, data collection
related to floodplain
administration
questions, review and
updates to past
mitigation strategies
Select City of Renton Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group members
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Meeting
10/3/2019 Review compiled
draft plan, prioritize
citywide projects,
identify gaps
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
Public Outreach
Public Outreach Events
EVENT DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Announcement at
televised City Council
meeting for public
education campaign
8/19/2019 EM Director made a televised
speech before Council that
focused the annual Ready in
Renton campaign on mitigation
measures for the public and
announced the date of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Open
house and the coming direct
mailer to every household in
Renton.
All City Council members, the
Mayor, approximately 20
anonymous/non-registered
public attendees at the
Council meeting, an unknown
number of members of the
Channel 21 television
audience, and 34 web site
visitors to the Council video
archive.
Special web page and
online survey
published
8/29/2019 Published a new informational
web page on mitigation and the
mitigation plan revision.
Published a survey to gather
resident/business input for the
plan revision. Solicited input
from the public on hazard
mitigation.
154 anonymous web page
visitors and 16 survey
completions between 8/29/19
and 9/29/2019.
Direct mailer to every
address in Renton
and/or inclusion in the
electronic utility bill
mailer
8/30/2019 Published an article about
mitigation and the upcoming
plan revision within Renton City
News and direct-mailed or
emailed to every utility customer
in Renton, directing people to
the new web page and survey.
Approximately 28,400 paper
or email newsletters mailed
out to Renton residents and
business.
Social media posts
about hazard
mitigation plan update
and open house
9/5/2019
Published an announcement and
invitation for input to the plan
revision on Facebook and
Twitter.
Received 7,075 post
impressions and interactions
combined.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 13
Information table and
activity at Multicultural
Festival
9/14/2019 Staffed a table at a public event
and solicited
An estimated 1500 members
of the public attended the
festival. Participants who
interacted at the information
table indicated which hazards
concerned them most by a dot
voting exercise.
Email announcement
of open house and
hazard mitigation plan
update
9/17/2019 Emailed Open House and
Hazard Mitigation Plan
announcement with the Byte of
Renton newsletter
Sent to 20,940 subscribers.
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Open House
9/19/2019 Held a two hour open house for
the public with subject matter
experts, maps, and draft plan
materials for comment and
review.
6 Renton residents and 3
nonresidents (including staff)
attended the open house.
Participants indicated which
hazards concerned them most
by a dot voting exercise.
Web page updated
with information and
draft plan ready for
submittal to King
County
11/5/2019 Continued solicitation of
comments and feedback from
the public via email.
No web hits data available at
time of draft plan submission.
Public Priorities for Hazard Mitigation
Information collected from public input meetings, open houses, and online comments indicate that the top two
hazards of greatest concern to residents of Renton are earthquakes and landslides/sinkholes/ground subsidence.
High public awareness of earthquake risk can be attributed to regional education efforts and the 2001 Nisqually
earthquake which highlighted the region’s earthquake risk. The SR530 mudslide, often called the Oso landslide, in
2014, followed by several recent minor landslides and sinkholes in Renton, has likely added to local concerns
about those geologic risks.
The detailed ranking of concern compiled from the online survey and public input meetings is as follows:
1) earthquake
2) landslides, sinkholes, and ground subsidence
3) severe storms (including high winds)
4) winter storms
5) floods
6) wildfires
7) volcano
8) dam failure
9) other hazards not mentioned in this plan
Other hazards of concern mentioned by members of the public include transportation emergencies (plane, truck,
or train crashes), explosions and hazardous materials releases (including gas line ruptures), and long term power
outages. Although this revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses exclusively on natural hazards, future
revisions will address technological or human-caused hazards such as these. Other issues outside of the scope of
this plan (crime, traffic problems) were brought up in the public comments, but are outside of the scope of a
Hazard Mitigation Plan and have been referred to the Police Department to address.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 14
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Program
Hazard mitigation strategies were developed
through a two-step process. The City of Renton
met with an internal planning team, an
expansion of the existing Emergency
Management Group that meets monthly in the
city, to identify a comprehensive range of
mitigation strategies. These strategies were then
prioritized using a process established at the
county level and documented in the base plan.
Each department or agency that has submitted a
strategy plan will continue to work towards
progress on that strategy. This includes advocacy
for budget allocations, workload assignments,
and grant applications that support
accomplishment of those strategies.
Plan Monitoring, Implementation, and
Future Updates
King County leads the mitigation plan
monitoring and update process and schedules
the annual plan check-ins and bi-annual
mitigation strategy updates. Updates on
mitigation projects are solicited by the county
for inclusion in the countywide annual report.
As a participant in the 2020 update to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Renton agrees to convene
their internal planning team at least annually to review their progress on hazard mitigation strategies and to update
the plan based on new data or recent disasters. This will be a breakout session of members of the city’s Emergency
Management Group that will convene in July, August and/or September to conduct this review.
When King County Emergency Management sends federal notices of funding opportunity for the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Grant Program, the city will evaluate the viability of projects eligible for such grants, and will
submit grant applications if appropriate to align with the priorities of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This will be a
key strategy to implement the plan.
The next plan update is expected to be due in April 2025. The City of Renton will submit a letter of intent by
2023, at least two years prior to plan expiration. The county will lead the next regional planning effort, beginning
at least 18 months before the expiration of the 2020 plan.
Continued Public Participation
The City of Renton already maintains substantial public outreach capabilities, focusing on personal preparedness
and education. Information on ongoing progress in implementing the hazard mitigation plan will be integrated
into public outreach efforts. This will provide Renton residents, already engaged in personal preparedness efforts,
with context and the opportunity to provide feedback on the county’s progress and priorities in large-scale
mitigation. In the vertical integration of risk-reduction activities from personal to local to state and federal, it is
important that the public understand how its activities support, and are supported by, larger-scale efforts.
King County Overall Plan Goals
1.Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2.Access to Health and Human
Services
3.Access to Parks and Natural
Resources
4.Access to Safe and Efficient
Transportation
5.Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6.Community and Public Safety
7.Early Childhood Development
8.Economic Development
9.Equitable Law and Justice System
10.Equity in Government Practices
11.Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12.Healthy Built and Natural
Environments
13.Quality Education
14.Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 15
The outreach and mitigation teams will also continue to work with media and other agency partners to publicize
mitigation success stories and help explain how vulnerabilities are being fixed. When possible, public tours of
mitigation projects will be organized to allow community members to see successful mitigation in action.
Plan Integration
Integrating the Hazard Mitigation Plan with existing planning processes and programs results in greater impact by
ensuring consistency with jurisdiction priorities and leveraging opportunities for multi-benefit initiatives. This
integration will be achieved by: 1) Sharing information about planning processes across departments, particularly
those that prioritize and invest in infrastructure. This is accomplished monthly in the Emergency Management
Group meeting, and through relationships established in other planning processes. 2) Referencing the plan when
reviewing development proposals or zoning changes. 3) Referencing the plan when considering capital facilities
improvements.4) Referencing the plan when revising Building or Fire Codes.
Over the past five years, the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been successfully integrated with many existing plans,
processes and programs. The city’s Planning Director is involved in both the writing and review of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan and coordinating development and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas
Ordinance. Through our State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the evaluation of hazards is a key step
when considering relevant development proposals or zoning changes. The plan is also referenced in the periodic
revision of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. It forms the basis for the planning assumptions that
underpin the response and recovery aspects of that plan. Prioritized mitigation projects are considered for
inclusion in the Capital Facilities plan whenever it is updated. Where relevant (although not in the past five years)
the Hazard Mitigation Plan also informs Building Code and Fire Code revisions, particularly pertaining to
earthquake and flood risks.
Hazard Mitigation Authorities, Responsibilities, and Capabilities
Plans
PLAN TITLE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT RELATIONSHIP TO HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
Comprehensive
Plan
City of Renton Community
and Economic
Development Department
Community &
Economic
Development
Administrator
Planning Director
Includes policies applicable to
sensitive areas and principles for
future development
Comprehensive
Emergency
Management
Plan
City of Renton Office of
Emergency Management
Emergency
Management Director
Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plans currently
include mitigation approaches
with roles/ responsibilities of
city departments and
community partners
Capital Facilities
Plan
City of Renton Community
Services Department
Administrative Services
Department
Public Works Department
Community Services
Administrator
Administrative
Services Administrator
Public Works
Administrator
Identifies critical facilities and
major improvement or
construction projects that need
to consider
hazards/vulnerabilities, and
appropriate mitigation measures
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 16
Programs, Policies, and Processes
PROGRAM/POLICY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT RELATIONSHIP TO
HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
Building Codes City of Renton Community
and Economic
Development Department
City of Renton Building
Official
Building code
development depends on
the same understanding
of hazards
Emergency
Management
Program
City of Renton Executive
Department/Emergency
Management Division
Emergency Management
Director
Tracking of disaster
impacts, new or changing
hazards, public
engagement around
mitigation.
Critical Areas
Ordinance
Community and Economic
Development
Community & Economic
Development Administrator
Planning Director
Regulates development in
sensitive areas
Fire Code Renton Regional Fire
Authority
Fire Marshall Fire code development
depends on the same
understanding of hazards
Entities Responsible for Hazard Mitigation
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION POINT OF CONTACT RESPONSIBILITY(S)
Community and
Economic Development
Department
Community and
Economic Development
Administrator
Planning Director
Policy and planning input to decrease community
vulnerability over time, and react to emergencies.
Community Services
Department
Community Services
Administrator
Mitigating damage to city facilities and natural
resources
Executive Department,
Emergency
Management Division
Emergency Management
Director
Public education and engagement, planning process
oversight
Public Works Public Works
Administrator
Critical infrastructure mitigation (roads, bridges,
utilities, etc.), flood plain management, hazard
emergency response and recovery.
Renton Regional Fire
Authority
Fire Chief Wildfire mitigation, public education and engagement,
fire code development and enforcement
National Flood Insurance Program
The City of Renton is a member and actively participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, which makes
flood insurance available to Renton property owners. The City oversees compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program requirements for new construction and provides information to property owners in Special
Flood Hazard Areas regarding flood insurance requirements.
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 17
What department is responsible for floodplain
management in your community?
Shared responsibility and partnership between the
Community and Economic Development
Department and the Public Works Department.
Who is your community’s floodplain
administrator? (title/position)
Community and Economic Development
Department Administrator
What is the date of adoption of your flood
damage prevention ordinance?
May 8, 1981 (Ordinance 3537), last update on July 5,
2015 Ord. 5757.
When was the most recent Community
Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
June 17, 2019, Matt Gerlach, Regional NFIP
Coordinator and Dave Radabaugh, Washington State
Department of Ecology Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program
Does your community have any outstanding
NFIP compliance violations that need to be
addressed? If so, please state what they are?
No outstanding NFIP compliance violations.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address
the flood risk within your community? If so,
please state why.
Once the new King County DFIRM following the
letter of final determination from FEMA, the flood
hazard maps will adequately address flood risks in
Renton except for in the portion of the Green River
floodplain in Renton. The Green River floodplain is
identified as a seclusion area in the DFIRM that still
utilizes the old FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
until and an updated Flood Insurance Study and map
is completed.
Does your floodplain management staff need any
assistance or training to support its floodplain
management program? If so, what type of
training/assistance is needed?
Yes, overview of NFIP current requirements for new
and existing employees. Training on the information
needed and how to complete the updated Building
Elevation Certificate and training needed for
becoming a certified floodplain manager.
Does your community participate in the
Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, what is
your CRS Classification and are you seeing to
improve your rating? If not, is your community
interested in joining CRS?
Yes. CRS Classification 5. The City of Renton is
seeking to maintain this rating and possibly improve
our rating as part of the next CRS verification review.
How many Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and
Repetitive Loss (RL) properties are located in
your jurisdiction?
SRL: 0
RL: 0
Has your community ever conducted an elevation
or buy out of a flood-prone property? If so, what
fund source did you use? If not, are you
interested in pursuing buyouts of flood prone
properties?
n/a
Hazard Mitigation Strategies
The city has made notable progress in mitigation projects over the past five years. Major accomplishments
include completion of a major dredging project on the Cedar River to prevent flooding, funding of and
participation in the 2015-2016 LiDAR study to better identify landslide-prone areas, securing of funding for
the design, permitting and construction of improvements to the levees and floodwalls needed for certification,
obtaining a grant to reduce flood hazards associated with Madsen Creek, and seismic retrofitting and
repainting of three downtown area bridges funded by three separate grants.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 18
In the reformatting of this plan, several strategies have been reevaluated, and some have been deprecated.
Others have been converted into the new format of strategies. Those changes have been indicated in the table s
below.
2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategy Status
STRATEGY DESCRIPTION PRIORITY STATUS
RN #1 Maintain good standing
under NFIP
Medium Maintained. Dropping as a specific strategy as compliance
is institutionalized, and embedded in multiple new flood-
related strategies
RN#2 Pursue funding for
mitigation
High Have applied for multiple mitigation grants. Dropping and
rolling into new strategy combined with RN#3,
converting to “Funding/Partnership Mitigation Strategy”
RN#3 Public/private
partnerships
Low Dropping and rolling into new strategy combined with
RN #2, “Funding Partnership Strategies”, also incorporate
into “Water System Risk Assessment”
RN#4 Detailed inventories of
seismically at-risk
buildings/infrastructure
Low Dropping as a specific strategy. Data exists but no staff
assigned to compile it further for buildings. Infrastructure
component has been converted to “Water System Risk
Assessment”
RN#5 Integrate with planning
and regulatory
documents
Medium Has been institutionalized as a standard practice.
Dropping as a specific strategy.
RN#6 Enforce Critical Area
and Shoreline Master
Program regulations
Medium Has been institutionalized as a standard practice.
Dropping as a specific strategy.
RN#7 Dredging, maintenance
of floodwalls and
levees
High Converting to “Cedar River Gravel Removal Project”,
“Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project
– Operation and Maintenance”, and “Cedar River Section
205 Levee Certification Project”
RN#8 Surface Water Utility
programs for flood
hazard management
High Converting to “Cedar River Gravel Removal Project”,
“Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project
– Operation and Maintenance”, and “Cedar River Section
205 Levee Certification Project”
RN#9 Member of FEMA
Community Rating
System, seeking to
improve
Medium Increased to CRS Classification 5. Dropping this formal
strategy, as maintaining this classification and seeking to
improve it is institutionalized.
RN#10 Re-evaluate future land
use in floodplain
Medium Dropping, as this is now standard practice
RN#11 Underground power
for new developments
Medium Dropping, as this is now required in code
RN#12 Seismic evaluation and
prioritization of city
owned buildings/
infrastructure
Medium Specific strategies will be developed to replace this.
Currently focusing on new strategy, “Airport Earthquake
and Seismic Mitigation”
RN#13 FEMA information
distribution on seismic
retrofit
Low Dropping, as this information is always available to
customers
RN#14 Funding for seismic
retrofit
High Converting to current focus, “Airport Earthquake and
Seismic Mitigation”
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 19
RN#15 Support county-wide
mitigation initiatives
Medium Converting/rolling together with #16 into “Regional
Planning Mitigation Strategy”
RN#16 Plan maintenance Medium Converting/rolling together with #15 into “Regional
Planning Mitigation Strategy”
The following strategies emerged as the best mitigation focus for the City of Renton over the next five years,
with some projects, such as the Cedar River Gravel Removal Project, in a monitoring status to determine
longer range mitigation needs 10 years out or more.
2020 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
STRATEGY LEAD AGENCY/POC TIMELINE PRIORITY
Airport Earthquake and
Seismic Mitigation
Renton Public Works/Airport
Manager
2020-2022 High
Cedar River Section 205 Flood
Hazard Reduction Project –
Operation and Maintenance
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
Ongoing Medium
Cedar River Gravel Removal
Project
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2031-2037 Medium
Cedar River Section 205 Levee
Certification Project
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2025 Medium
Coal Mine Study Mitigation
Strategy
Renton Community and Economic
Development/Planning Director and
Building Plan Reviewer
2020 Low
Funding/Partnership
Mitigation Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2022 Low
Lower Cedar River Flood Risk
Reduction Feasibility Study
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2025 Medium
Maintenance Facility Standby
Emergency Power
Community Services Department
Facilities Director
2025 High
Regional Planning Mitigation
Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2025 Medium
Utility Pumping Facilities
Back-Up Power
Renton Public Works/ Maintenance
Services Director and Utility Systems
Director
2022 High
Volcanic Ash & Wildfire
Smoke Mitigation Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2021 Low
Water System Risk
Assessment
Renton Public Works/ Water Utility
Engineering Manager and Water
Maintenance Manager
2022-2025 Medium
Water Utility Seismic
Resilience
Renton Public Works/ Water Utility
Engineering Manager and Water
Maintenance Manager
2022-2025 High
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 20
Future Hazard Mitigation Plan Revisions
The City of Renton participated in a King County Tree Canopy Assessment at the end of 2018. The City of
Renton is analyzing this data for areas that fall within the City of Renton’s boundaries. This data will be
incorporated into a Wildfire Fuels Map that will be included in the next major revision of the plan. It will help
identify those areas within the city most at risk from a Wildland/Urban Interface wildfire.
Information is being gathered for non-natural hazards that were not included in the 2019-2020 revision of this
plan. Future revisions of this plan will address cybersecurity threats to infrastructure as well as hazardous materials
release or explosion threats from several sources.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 21
Airport Earthquake and Seismic Mitigation
Lead POC
Jason Anderson,
Asst. Airport
Manager
Harry Barrett
Airport Manager
William Adams
Airport Engineer
Partner Points of Contact
FAA
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake;
Landslide/Sinkhole
Safe operation of Air Traffic
Control Tower and Seaplane Base
(Critical Infrastructure)
Uninterrupted Transportation of
goods/supplies
Economic Development
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$1.8M Retrofit cost
$650,000 City Cost
FEMA Grants
FAA AIP, CIP,
Small Airports
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Mitigate the seismic impact of the Air Traffic Control Tower in future events and repair current damage from the past
1994 event(s). The Tower in not currently rated for either Collapse Prevention, Life Safety or Immediate Occupancy
in case of a seismic event. Generally, an Immediate Occupancy performance level is assigned to a building that is
deemed an essential facility and is required to be functional shortly after the design-level earthquake. The 2012
International Building Code (IBC) classifies aviation control towers and air traffic control centers as essential facilities.
Mitigation Strategy
The Renton Municipal Airport’s Air Traffic Control Tower, built in the 1960’s, does not meet current structural code.
Recent engineering studies have identified the following deficiencies; excessive horizontal drift ratios, inadequate beam
connections to the weak axes of columns, inadequate panel zone shear capacities, lack of beam bottom flange bracing,
impacts of site liquefaction, lack of connection between the timber piles and the concrete pile caps to resist uplift
forces due to an earthquake, which is of particular concern for a building with the height-to-base width aspect ratio of
a control tower. To remedy the tower to an ASCE 41-13, Retrofit Standard BSE-2E, Tier III, Risk III, “Limited
Safety Structural Performance, Non-Structural Performance not considered” (Life Safety) rating, an exoskeleton and
bracing will be fitted. As per the last official notice Wiley Post Seaplane Base is considered a strategic asset according
to the Puget Sound Transportations Recovery Annex. Recent survey has identified the Seaplane Ramp is settling and
developed significant cracking due to a developed void underneath, the Airport needs to rebuild/reinforce ramp.
Multiple Conduits and water mains are routed under the runway. Reinforcing this infrastructure to resist seismic
activity would prevent loss of air traffic control communication capabilities and hydraulic mining under the runway
surface.
2-Year Objectives
Apply for funding through
FEMA (PDM)
Complete retrofit of Tower
Mitigation Project
Apply for FAA Funding, Master
Plan
5-Year Objectives
Evaluate remaining life and determine
appropriateness of complete replacement.
Conduct siting study for new tower
Relocate/fix Seaplane Base
Reinforce communication conduit
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain Air Traffic
Control Tower to a
Critical Infrastructure
Standard, Non-Structural
to be considered
Implementation Plan/Actions
Combine FEMA grants (PDM) and Airport funds to the Airport Tower Mitigation Project
Plan for future siting and building of new tower
Performance Measures
Successfully eliminate the structural seismic concern at the airport by retrofitting and/or building a new
facility
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 22
Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project – Operation and
Maintenance
Lead POC
City of
Renton
Surface
Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points
of Contact
King County
Flood Alerts
Renton
Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam Failure, Flood
Reduce the risk of levee failure
Maintain federal sponsorship of the
Cedar River Section 205 Levees
and eligibility for flood response
assistance under PL84-99
Maintaining the level of protection
of the Cedar River Section 205
Levees to, at minimum, the 100-
year flow
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources / Estimated Costs
$ Cost is dependent on specific
maintenance needs
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
Surface Water Maintenance Fund
Federal disaster funding through
the Army Corps of Engineers
King County Flood Control
District
Strategy Vision/Objective
Following the construction of the Section 205 Levees along the Cedar from Williams Ave N to Lake Washington, in
cooperation with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), obligations for operation and maintenance were
transferred to the City of Renton in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&MM). Additionally,
the USACE conducts routine annual and 5-year periodic inspections of the Levees in order to determine maintenance
needs and rate their acceptability and eligibility for flood response assistance. The objective of this program is to
operate and maintain the levees in accordance with the O&MM and maintain a minimally acceptable rating following
each USACE levee inspection.
Mitigation Strategy
Maintain close cooperation with the USACE and Boeing
Adhere to the inspections, flood stage procedures, bridge operation, closure operation, and maintenance
requirements of the OM&M
Secure funding for routine repair projects
2-Year Objectives
Same as long-
term objectives
5-Year Objectives
Same as long-
term objectives
Long-Term Objectives
Prevent levee failure due to lack of maintenance or improper
operation.
Maintain eligibility for federal flood response assistance
Implementation Plan/Actions
Monitor flows on the Cedar River during major regional storm events
Initiate levee repair or vegetation management projects in a timely manner following the determination of a
deficiency
Conduct levee inspections with the USACE and as required by the O&MM
Performance Measures
Obtain a minimally acceptable rating from the USACE on an annual basis
Operate and maintain the Section 205 Levees in accordance with the O&MM
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 23
Cedar River Gravel Removal Project
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of Contact
King County Flood
Control Zone District
Renton Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Flood
Reducing the risk of flooding
during the 100-year flow along
Section 205 of the Cedar River
Maintaining the level of protection
of the Cedar River Section 205
Levees to, at minimum, the 100-
year flow
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 10.5 Million
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
King County Flood
Control Zone District
Capital Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Section 205 of the Cedar River requires periodic maintenance dredging due to continuous sediment accumulation
which gradually reduces the conveyance capacity of the river, and level of flood protection offered by the Section 205
levees from Williams Ave S to Lake Washington. The objective of this project is to periodically (every 12-18 years)
dredge the Cedar River bed to reduce the risk of flooding and protect adjacent properties.
Mitigation Strategy
The City of Renton monitors sediment accumulation on a yearly basis by performing cross section surveys along the
lower 2 miles of the river. When the river bed reaches or significantly approaches the “warning elevation”, defined as
1.5 ft below the “maximum bed elevation”, the City initiates the design and permitting efforts of a maintenance
dredging project. The “maximum bed elevation” is the river bed elevation above which the levees in Section 205 can
no longer provide 2 feet of freeboard during the 100-year flood. Typically, a maintenance dredging project also
includes bank stabilization and outfall repairs needed to maintain the structural stability of the levees.
2-Year Objectives
Keep monitoring
sediment accumulation
Establish funding
requirements for the
next Gravel Removal
project
5-Year Objectives
Keep monitoring sediment accumulation
Secure funding for the design, permitting,
construction and mitigation requirements of the
next Gravel Removal Project
If required, initiate the design of the next Gravel
Removal Project
Long-Term Objectives
Successfully dredge the
Cedar River and maintain
the flood protection
capacity of the Section
205 levees
Implementation Plan/Actions
Annual survey of sediment accumulation
Maintenance dredging of the Cedar River every 12-18 years
Performance Measures
Successful project execution is achieved when the Cedar River gets dredged before reaching the “maximum
bed elevation”, in compliance with all permitting and mitigation requirements.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 24
Cedar River Section 205 Levee Certification Project
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
USACE – Seattle
District
King County Flood
Control Zone
District
The Boeing Co.
Renton Municipal
Airport
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam failure, Flood
Increasing the level of flood
protection during the 100-year flow
Achieving levee accreditation in
accordance with FEMA guidelines
and maintaining Zone X
classification
Protecting Renton Municipal
Airport and Boeing from being
subjected to floodplain development
regulations and flood insurance
requirements
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 5,000,000
Surface Water
Capital
Improvement
Program
King County Flood
Control Zone
District Capital
Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
The Cedar River Section 205 Levees are currently provisionally accredited levees, with final accreditation contingent
upon design and construction of levee improvements that were determined to be needed in order meet current FEMA
accreditation standards, and provide sufficient freeboard during the 100-year flood. If left uncertified, the levees
would not be mapped by FEMA and adjacent properties would be regulated as if they were in the floodplain.
Mitigation Strategy
Several sections of the levees and floodwalls need improvements in order to provide sufficient freeboard or increase
structural stability. The City of Renton is permitting, designing and constructing these improvements.
2-Year Objectives
Permit and design levee
improvements
Submit a new CLOMR to FEMA
showing final design drawings
and demonstrating Endangered
Species Act Compliance
5-Year Objectives
Construct levee
improvements
Submit a LOMR to FEMA
with the final project report
and record drawing and
obtain accreditation.
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain levee accreditation with
FEMA
Initiate a re-accreditation project
once the certification issued by the
consultant expires.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Using a phased approach (Assessment, permitting, design, construction, final accreditation)
Coordinating with the USACE on Section 408 review and other agencies on required permits
Using an effective project management approach and closely monitor schedule closely
Performance Measures
Several milestones during the design of the levee improvements will serve as performance checkpoints.
Successful accreditation relies on adequate project management and control, clear communication and
collaboration with the permitting agencies, and successful construction of the improvements.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 25
Coal Mine Study Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Planning Director
Building Plan Reviewer
Partner Points of Contact
US Office of Surface Mines
Olympic Pipeline
Bonneville Power
Administration
Seattle City Light
Puget Sound Energy
Seattle Public Utilities
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquakes;
Landslides/Sinkholes
Goals: 6
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$100k
FEMA
Match of $25k in
staffing by City
of Renton
Strategy Vision/Objective
Update and verify historic maps of coal mine features including mine shafts and coal mine seams and overlay these
with vulnerable infrastructure including regional fuel pipelines, electrical transmission corridors, regional water
pipelines, sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, etc.), and roadway to assist in identifying potential hazards. Identify
methods to stabilize areas where critical infrastructure is at risk from subsidence.
Mitigation Strategy
Identify potential conflicts between historic coalmine features and critical infrastructure and sensitive
receptors.
Identify mitigation measures to stabilize areas with high risk for subsidence.
Avoid developing new critical infrastructure and/or sensitive receptors in areas with identified subsidence risk
from historic coal mining activities.
2-Year Objectives
Fund study to verify location and
depth of abandoned and closed
historic coalmine features, and
identify where these features may
threaten critical infrastructure.
Identify mitigation to stabilize
known areas of conflict
5-Year Objectives
Short term project will be complete in
two years
Long-Term Objectives
Short term project will be
complete in two years
Implementation Plan/Actions
Fund study in 2020 to verify locations and depths of abandoned and closed historic coalmines and coal
mining features; overlay with critical infrastructure and develop mitigation to prevent subsidence and threat to
critical infrastructure and vulnerable sensitive receptors.
Convene stakeholder meetings in late 2020 to share study findings and develop joint strategies to develop
mitigation measures.
Performance Measures
Successfully identify potential hazards to determine current hazard risk and strategies to avoid impacts of
subsidence on critical infrastructure such as pipelines and roads, and vulnerable sensitive receptors such as
schools and hospitals.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 26
Funding/Partnership Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Emergency
Management Director
Partner Points of
Contact
Washington State
Military Dept. EM
Division
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 4, 6, 8, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$0
Staff time
City share TBD
Strategy Vision/Objective
Leverage community partnerships (public and private) and grant funding opportunities to address mitigation priorities
within the city.
Mitigation Strategy
Reach out to community partners to determine shared concerns and priorities around hazard mitigation.
Negotiate cost-share agreements for shared projects, or allocate matching funds from city budget to meet
grant requirements.
2-Year Objectives
Identify new partners for
mitigation projects where
appropriate
Submit grant applications when
opportunities arise
5-Year Objectives
Complete one project with partner
participation and/or grant funding
Long-Term Objectives
Continue to cultivate a
community culture that
participates in investment
in mitigation
Implementation Plan/Actions
Update Greater Renton COAD membership contact information to renew relationships and make new
connections
Introduce mitigation concepts in meetings with external stakeholders
Maintain grant documentation files and tracking system for applications
Performance Measures
Submit one grant application every two years
Complete one project with partner participation and/or grant funding
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 27
Lower Cedar River Flood Risk Reduction Feasibility Study
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Flood
Control Zone
District
King County
Renton Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Flood
Additional flood risk
reduction beyond the 100-
year flood
Identifying future flood
improvement projects along
the lower 2 miles of the
Cedar River
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources / Estimated
Costs
$ 500,000
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
King County Flood Control
Zone District Capital
Improvement Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Identify the most feasible level of flood protection along the lower 2 miles of the Cedar River and specific
improvement projects to implement in order to reach that level of protection.
Mitigation Strategy
The Lower Cedar River traverses through a major commercial, industrial, recreational and residential area in the City
of Renton, vital to the local economy. Section 205, from Williams Ave N to Lake Washington is protected from the
100-year flood by levees. However, overtopping could occur at locations upstream of this reach and result in minor
localized flooding of roadways. This study would explore measures to prevent such localized flooding. Also, during
floods larger than the 200-year flood event, extensive overtopping of the left and right banks upstream of Logan Ave
could occur. This study would explore measures to reduce the flooding risks during such extreme events and the
feasibility of achieving such a level of protection.
2-Year Objectives
Identify desired level of flood
protection requirement
Identify required flood
improvement projects
5-Year Objectives
Plan and identify funding needs
for proposed improvement
projects
Design and implement smaller
flood improvement projects
Long-Term Objectives
Design and implement larger
flood improvement projects
Improve overall flood protection
along lower Cedar River
Implementation Plan/Actions
Seek grants from the King County Flood Control District, FEMA, or Floodplains by Design to fund the
design and construction projects identified for improvement.
o Build on existing partnerships with environmental and community organizations to ensure that design
meets the needs of all stakeholders.
o Assess design to ensure that it meets estimated increased flows due to climate change.
Construction of flood risk reduction improvements.
Performance Measures
Successfully identify projects to reduce the risk of flooding, improve resiliency to climate change and extreme
weather events, protect private property, and preserve key economic assets.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 28
Maintenance Facility Standby Emergency Power
Lead POC
Community Services
Department Facilities
Director
Partner Points of
Contact
Public Works
Department
Maintenance Services
Director and Utility
Systems Director
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam failure; Earthquake;
Flood; Landslide; Severe Weather;
Severe Winter Weather; Volcano;
Wildfire
Ensure full operation of facility
during power outages to allow
response to hazards.
Goals:4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$500,000
City
FEMA HMGP
Strategy Vision/Objective
Provide back-up emergency power generation at the City of Renton Maintenance Facility to allow for full operation of
the facility, which is the City’s Emergency Command center for responding to any significant hazard that results in an
emergency. The facility is used by the Street Maintenance, Surface Water Utility Maintenance, Wastewater
Maintenance, Fleet Services and Water Utility Maintenance Section. All City Departments rely on the Facility for
fueling and maintenance/repair of City vehicles. All Public Works equipment that may be needed during an
emergency is stored at the facility and City maintenance personnel are dispatched from the facility when responding to
hazards. The SCADA system controls for the Water Utility operation of the City’s water supply wells, reservoirs,
pump stations and treatment facilities is located at the facility along with the SCADA system for Wastewater Utility
and Surface Water Utility lift stations and pump stations.
Mitigation Strategy
The Maintenance Facility currently only has back-up power generation that allow for partial operation, which impacts
the City’s ability to respond to hazards that result in power outages. The increased back-up power generation will
provide full power to the facility for hazard emergency response without an limitation due to only partial power at the
City of Renton Maintenance Shop Facility.
2-Year Objectives
Secure funding for design
Hire consultant for design
Start design and permitting
5-Year Objectives
Secure funding for construction
Complete final design, construction plans,
specifications and permitting
Complete construction
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain City operations
at the Facility during
power outages caused any
hazard event for response
to the event.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Secure funding from possible funding sources, complete consultant selection process for design and execute
design contract.
Complete design and permitting and secure funding for construction.
Advertise for bids and award construction contract and complete construction.
Implement maintenance of the back-up power generator and test periodically.
Performance Measures
Back-up power generation is installed at the City of Renton Maintenance Facility to allow full operation at the
facility during a hazard that results in a power outage.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 29
Regional Planning Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Emergency
Management Director
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Office
of Emergency
Management
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 4, 6, 8, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 0
Staff time
Strategy Vision/Objective
As a partner in the development of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the city will actively engage in
contributing to the county-wide initiatives that require stakeholder participation and support. This includes
participating in the plan maintenance strategy identified in the plan.
Mitigation Strategy
Identify opportunities to support county-wide initiatives identified in the overall King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in the plan.
2-Year Objectives
Produce an annual review and
progress report
5-Year Objectives
Produce a completely revised plan
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain a current and
relevant Renton Annex to
the King County
Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Implementation Plan/Actions
Continue to conduct an annual plan review, to include a review of county-wide initiatives.
Identify opportunities for Renton to contribute to county-wide initiatives, and participate accordingly.
Conduct a comprehensive plan revision in 5 years.
Performance Measures
Annual review is completed and progress support submitted to King County.
5 year plan revision is completed and submitted to King County.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 30
Utility Pumping Facilities Back-Up Power
Lead POC
Utility Systems Director
Public Works
Maintenance Services
Director
Partner Points of
Contact
DOH
DOE
Renton RFA
King County
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake; Flood; Severe
Weather; Severe Winter Weather
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 7M (water)
$ 1M (wastewater)
$ 1M (surface water)
Capital
Improvement
Programs
Strategy Vision/Objective
Improve reliability at utility pumping facilities with on-site standby power systems. These projects could prevent
downtime of critical facilities in order to maintain public health and safety.
Mitigation Strategy
Critical pumping facilities for the city include 11 domestic water booster pump stations, 20 wastewater lift stations,
and 2 stormwater pump stations. Not all of these facilities currently have back-up power. During power outages,
pumping facilities that lack back-up power 1) risk disruption to water and wastewater services; 2) reduce flood control
capabilities at stormwater pump stations; and 3) cause additional strain/wear to on-line pumping facilities, which
consequently decreases the equipment’s life expectancy. The City will evaluate emergency standby power options,
including installing on-site generators and increasing fuel storage, to lessen the impact of future power outages at
utility pumping facilities.
2-Year Objectives
Construction of back-up power
improvement projects in
pre-design phase
Identify additional back-up
power improvement projects
5-Year Objectives
Plan and identify funding needs for
proposed improvement projects
Design and implement priority back-up
power improvement projects
Long-Term Objectives
Design and implement
remaining back-up power
improvement projects
Improve overall reliability
at critical pumping
facilities
Implementation Plan/Actions
Complete construction of back-up power improvements at four wastewater lift stations.
Complete final design and construction of back-up power improvements at two domestic water booster pump
stations that are currently in the 30 percent pre-design phase.
Allocate capital funding to design and implement additional back-up power improvement projects.
Performance Measures
Solutions maintain the continuity of operations, protect property, protect the environment, and protect key
economic assets.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 31
Volcanic Ash & Wildfire Smoke Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Renton Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Public
Health
Puget Sound Clean
Air Agency
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Volcano; Wildfire
Goals: 6, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
None
Strategy Vision/Objective
Our objective is to inform and prepare our community for the impacts of both volcanic ash deposits and wildfire-
caused ash. Since the likelihood of volcanic eruption is low, and the wildfire ash impacts are sporadic, our strategy will
rely on public communication and outreach. We shall conduct an annual public awareness campaign in conjunction
with wildfire impact awareness to ensure residents have an understanding of the hazards affecting the city, actions
they can take, and what we as the local jurisdiction can provide. Our objective is to inform and prepare our
community for the impacts of both volcanic ash deposits and wildfire-caused ash. Since the likelihood of volcanic
eruption is low, and the wildfire ash impacts are sporadic, our strategy will rely on public communication and
outreach. We shall conduct an annual public awareness campaign in conjunction with wildfire impact awareness to
ensure residents have an understanding of the hazards affecting the city, actions they can take, and what we as the
local jurisdiction can provide.
Mitigation Strategy
May 18th, the anniversary of Mt. St. Helen’s eruption, will serve as an annual ash and wildfire smoke awareness
campaign launch. It will include social media and public communications regarding education on the risk to Renton
residents; appropriate actions if the hazard occurs; and ways to lessen the impact of poor air quality on human health,
as well as transportation and general visibility. Target audiences include: Building owners & businesses - connecting
them with air filtration providers as requested; Individuals - personal preparedness measures (staying indoors, use of
appropriate masks); vehicle mitigation efforts (covering cars, avoid driving in limited visibility, dangers to vehicle
filtration systems); methods of securing your home from air quality and ash impacts
2-Year Objectives
Community awareness of
impacts of volcanic or wildfire
caused ash hazards.
5-Year Objectives
Normalize ash hazards and impacts as part
of wider air quality warnings, with public
safety actions known by the community
Long-Term Objectives
A well-prepared community with
baseline awareness of possible hazards
and protective actions they can take
Implementation Plan/Actions
Design survey alongside partners to understand current levels of awareness
Design social media and public outreach campaign, including messaging and strategy
Implement plan during late spring – summer months.
Conduct survey at the end of summer to better understand community’s awareness of local hazards and their
impacts, including ash impacts.
Performance Measures
Increase in awareness and engagement with post-campaign surveys of community.
Increase in engagement with outreach efforts (for example, with online media campaign, in-person outreach)
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 32
Water System Risk Assessment
Lead POC
Water Utility
Engineering Manager
Water Maintenance
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
Renton RFA
EPA
LEPC
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 100,000
Water Capital
Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Develop a risk and resilience assessment that identifies the most significant malevolent acts and natural hazards to the
water utility’s critical assets, reduces vulnerabilities of these critical assets, prepares for the threats that could occur,
and mitigates the potential consequences of incidents that do occur.
Mitigation Strategy
The City of Renton is a community water system that provides supply, treatment, storage, and distribution of
dependable and safe water. The Water Utility is required under the 2018 America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA)
to assess the risks to, and resilience of, its water system. The risk assessment will 1) inventory at-risk water
infrastructure that contribute to critical functionality of the water system; 2) evaluate the risk and known
vulnerabilities to significant threats and hazards; and 3) implement prevention, protection, and mitigation activities for
identified threats and hazards. The Water Utility will develop partnerships with local emergency response and
planning groups to foster hazard mitigation activities.
2-Year Objectives
Develop risk assessment
Develop policy changes to
mitigate the risks to the critical
drinking water infrastructure
5-Year Objectives
Assess the effectiveness of efforts to
secure and strengthen the resilience of
critical drinking water infrastructure
Update risk assessment
Long-Term Objectives
Increase drinking water
infrastructure resilience
to malevolent acts and
natural hazards
Update risk assessment
every 5 years per AWIA
regulations
Implementation Plan/Actions
Develop the water system risk assessment.
Use as a prioritized plan for security upgrades, modifications of operational procedures, and policy changes to
mitigate risks.
Performance Measures
Identifies potential improvements that serve multiple purposes to enhance operations and resilience of the
drinking water system.
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 33
Water Utility Seismic Resilience
Lead POC
Water Utility
Engineering Manager
Water Maintenance
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
PNSN/USGS
Renton RFA
DOH
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$100,000 ShakeAlert
$1.8M Retrofit
PDM & Water
capital budget
Strategy Vision/Objective
Reduce potential damage/losses to critical water facilities from an earthquake by 1) integration of an early warning
system; 2) installation of seismic shut-off valves on water storage facilities; and 3) development of post-earthquake
isolation and control actions. These projects could improve the survivability of the municipal water supply system,
reduce loss following an earthquake, and potentially save lives.
Mitigation Strategy
Critical water facilities for the city include 9 production wells, 1 spring, 11 booster pump stations, and 10 reservoirs.
Because Washington State has one of the highest risks of expected casualties and economic loss from earthquakes in
the nation, the city needs water system infrastructure improvements for seismic resiliency. The Water Utility will apply
to participate in PNSN’s new pilot program that monitors earthquake activity using a network of sensors distributed
across the region. The ShakeAlert system, connected into the existing SCADA system, will alert the Water Utility,
which allows for automatic control actions and for emergency protocols to be taken by city personnel before shaking
occurs. The Water Utility will also evaluate retrofitting 6 existing reservoirs with seismic valves to automatically
shutoff water flow at the tank to prevent complete water loss. The Water Utility will develop post-earthquake isolation
and control protocols, which are needed to ensure adequate water storage and distribution during an emergency.
2-Year Objectives
Apply for grant funding for
pre-design of ShakeAlert, then
apply for the pilot program
Develop policies/protocols for
post-earthquake drinking water
isolation and control actions
5-Year Objectives
Fund pre-design of seismic valve retrofit
Allocate funding in the capital budget to
fund implementation of ShakeAlert and
seismic shut-off valve retrofit
Utilize ShakeAlert Earthquake Early
Warning for water system
Long-Term Objectives
Seismic valves on all
water tanks
Provide earthquake early
warning to residents with
ShakeAlert
Implementation Plan/Actions
Apply for a grant from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance through PDM to fund planning, policy
development, and pre-design of ShakeAlert device/software. If grant application is unsuccessful, include
planning / design of early warning system in 2021 budget.
Hire consultant to perform planning /design services and apply for ShakeAlert pilot program. If accepted into
pilot program, allocate capital funding to configure alarm signal and connect to SCADA to automatically
initiate predetermined control actions following a triggered earthquake alarm.
Fund planning, pre-design, and construction of seismic valve retrofit on water reservoirs.
Performance Measures
Solutions maintain the continuity of operations and water service
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2020-
2025 KING COUNTY REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY’S ANNEX THERETO, AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF RENTON PLAN
ANNEX.
WHEREAS, the City and the surrounding areas are subject to a wide range of natural and
anthropogenic hazards, including floods, winter storms, earthquakes, landslides, hazardous
material spills and more; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, a partnership between King County and 55 different entities,
including the City of Renton, schools, fire districts, hospitals, and utility districts created the King
County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (“the Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Plan, and City’s annex to the Plan, was adopted by the City Council on
February 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Federal rules require the Plan be updated every five years; and
WHEREAS, FEMA has approved the draft 2020-2025 King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (“the 2020-2025 Plan”) and it is expected King County will formally adopt the
2020-2025 Plan in July, 2020; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for City Council to adopt the 2020-2025 Plan and authorize the
City of Renton’s annex thereto, and adopt the City of Renton Plan Annex;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
SECTION I. The City Council adopts the 2020-2025 Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated by this reference, as adopted by the King County Council in July 2020.
SECTION II. The City Council authorizes the City to annex to the 2020-2025 Plan and
adopts the City of Renton Plan Annex, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this
reference.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2020.
______________________________
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2020.
______________________________
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1854:6/29/2020
AGENDA ITEM #5. d)
AB - 2676
City Council Regular Meeting - 13 Jul 2020
SUBJECT/TITLE: Authorization to Reorganize the Public Works Department, Reclassify
the Airport Manager Position (Pay Grade m33) to an Airport Division
Director (Pay Grade m38) and Authorize Hiring the Airport Division
Director up to Step E
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Finance Committee
DEPARTMENT: Public Works Administration
STAFF CONTACT: Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator
EXT.: 7311
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
Creating a Public Works Department Airport Division has no fiscal impact to the General Fund, but minor
impact to the Airport Enterprise Fund (402).
Reclassifying the existing Airport Manager position (Pay Grade m33) to an Airport Division Director (Pay Grade
m38) has a fiscal impact to the Airport Operations Fund 402 of approximately $4,161 for 2020. If this position
is approved, staff will begin the process of recruiting for an Airport Director. The Public Works Department
continues to be committed to hiring the best candidate for vacant positions. Should it become necessary to
do so in negotiating with the preferred applicant for the position, the department is also seeking authorization
to offer Pay Grade m38, Step D or Step E, depending on qualifi cations. Step D has a 2020 budget impact of
approximately $6,087 and Step E an impact of approximately $8,080 to what is currently budgeted, which is
Pay Grade m33, Step D (former Airport Manager’s pay grade and step). Budget impacts from either Step C, D
or E will be absorbed by salary savings from several Airport position vacancies. The Airport has sufficient and
reliable funding to support the position promotion in 2021 and future years.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Public Works Department is requesting a reorganization to transition the Airport Section from under the
direction of the Transportation Systems Division to a separate Airport Division. As part of this proposed
reorganization the department desires to reclassify the existing vacant Airport Manager position to an Airport
Director. The Airport Director will report directly to the Public Works Administrator. The department would
also like authorization to negotiate with the preferred candidate, a salary of up to Pay Grade m38, Step E.
Please see Exhibit A Issue Paper for more details about this proposed reorganization, position promotion and
rationale for authorization to hire up to Step E.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
B. Proposed Revised Organizational Charts
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the proposed reorganization of the Public Works Department to create the Airport Division.
2. Authorize the requested promotion of the existing Airport Manager position to an Airport Director.
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
3. Authorize the Public Works Department to hire the preferred candidate at a salary of up to Pay Grade
m38, Step E, depending on qualifications of the applicant.
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:July 13, 2020
TO:Ruth Pérez, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Armondo Pavone, Mayor
FROM:Martin Pastucha, Public Works Department Administrator,
ext. 7311
SUBJECT:Authorization to Reorganize the Public Works Department,
Reclassify the Airport Manager Position (Pay Grade m33) to
an Airport Division Director (Pay Grade m38) and Authorize
Hiring the Airport Division Director up to Step E
ISSUE:
1. Should Council authorize the reorganization of the Public Works Department to
create an Airport Division?
2. Should Council authorize the promotion of the existing Airport Manager position
(Pay Grade m33) to an Airport Division Director (Pay Grade m38)?
3. Should Council authorize the Public Works Department to hire an Airport
Division Director up to Pay Grade m38, Step E?
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the reorganization of the Public Works Department to create an
Airport Division.
2. Authorize the promotion of the existing Airport Manager position (Pay Grade
m33) to an Airport Division Director (Pay Grade m38). The Airport Director will
report directly to the Public Works Department Administrator.
3. Authorize the Public Works Department to hire an Airport Division Director up to
Pay Grade m38, Step E.
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
Ruth Pérez, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 4
July 13, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Department currently consists of four divisions – Administration,
Maintenance Services, Transportation Systems and Utility Systems. The Renton
Municipal Airport is part of the existing Transportation Systems Division and considered
to be the, “Airport Section” of that division. The Section is currently under the direction
of an Airport Manager. A total of 9.0 FTEs staff the Airport, including the management
team. The Airport Manager reports to the Transportation Systems Division Director
who is very busy dealing with ongoing surface transportation projects and assembling
funding packages to continue to improve the surface transportation system.
In January 2018, a reorganization of the Airport Section was included as part of the
2017-2018 mid-biennium budget adjustment ordinance. This reorganization increased
staffing by 2.0 FTEs by adding a 1.0 FTE Airport Business Coordinator (Pay Grade a20),
1.0 FTE Operations and Maintenance Supervisor (Pay Grade a21), 1.0 FTE Airport
Operations Specialist (Pay Grade a15) and eliminated a vacant 1.0 FTE Office Assistant I
(Pay Grade a01). The addition of these positions did improve the function and
distribution of workload at the Airport, however gaps in general airport knowledge and
experience remained due to frequent staff turnover.
The Airport is at a critical time in its existence and requires a higher organizational
profile, recognition of the unique nature of an airport, and recognition of the knowledge
required for effective management of this asset. There are a number of issues that
could have a significant impact on future direction of the airport including the final
adoption of the Airport Master Plan (currently on hold), the impacts to manufacturing of
The Boeing Company from 737 MAX issues and economic downturn associated with
COVID-19, ongoing tenant management and upcoming lease negotiations, as well as the
potential growth in local retail and office sector in Renton and the increased demand for
general aviation services. In addition, the Airport Reference Code has been upgraded
from a B-2 level to a D-3 level by the Federal Aviation Administration as a result of the
new Draft Master Plan. Individually and combined these all could have a tremendous
impact on the future activity and structure of the Airport and the Administration is
looking to position the organization to best deal with these challenges.
To effectively address the above identified issues and to realign the Airport within the
department structure, the Public Works Department is requesting a department
reorganization that will transition the Airport Section out of the Transportation Systems
Division and create a separate Airport Division. Consistent with all divisions of the city,
the Airport would be managed by a director level position. The new Airport Director will
report directly to the Public Works Department Administrator. Administration supports
this reorganization plan and promotion of the existing vacant Airport Manager position
to an Airport Director. Administration and staff worked very closely to ensure such
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
Ruth Pérez, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 3 of 4
July 13, 2020
reorganization would provide the best internal and external service, be an efficient use
of Airport enterprise funds and provide the most effective leadership at the Airport.
Without reviewing extensive personnel records, we can best document that the
leadership position at the Airport was held by an Airport Director in the 1980s through
mid to late 1990s. In the late 1990s a less experienced manager, without airport
experience succeeded the Airport Director to manage the facility. As a result, the
position was downgraded to an Airport Manager. This individual held the position of
Airport Manager through early August 2014. When he resigned from this position and
went to another agency, the then Assistant Airport Manager was hired for the manager
position. He held the manager position through December 2016. Once again, in
January 2017 the city hired the existing Assistant Airport Manager, who held the
manager position until resigning in April 2020. Administration believes that promoting
the position to a director level would reduce the frequent turnover of leadership we
have seen over the past five years. The frequent turnover has resulted in a lack of
management continuity and disruption to the accomplishment of the Airport’s annual
work plan. Recruiting a director level position will clearly attract more experienced and
knowledgeable candidates with the desired airport management background and
certifications, as well as high level negotiation skills needed to collaborate with The
Boeing Company, other tenants of the Airport and the general public (including the
Renton Airport Advisory Committee).
If Council approves the position promotion, the Public Works Department intends to
conduct a national recruitment of candidates for the Airport Director position. It is our
belief that the Director recruitment will attract a higher level applicants with strong
aviation management knowledge, certifications and experience. Once the ideal
candidate is selected it is desirable to onboard that individual as soon as possible. In
order to expedite the start date, rather than return to Council for authorization, the
department would like to include as part of this agenda bill, a request for such
authorization to negotiate a salary of up to Pay Grade m38, Step E, dependent on
qualifications. Should the Public Works Department Administrator determine it to be
necessary to negotiate a salary higher than Step C, he will work with the Human
Resources Risk Management Department Administrator and the Mayor to ensure they
are in agreement that the preferred candidate possesses qualifications warranting hiring
at the higher step.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Renton Municipal Airport is operated as an enterprise fund. The Airport operating
fund, including staff salaries and benefits have no impact on the city’s General Fund.
Impacts to the Airport’s enterprise fund resulting from the global pandemic situation
are expected to be minimal. Revenues are sourced by long-term leases with Airport
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
Ruth Pérez, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 4 of 4
July 13, 2020
tenants, none of which have been canceled or gone unpaid because of the pandemic. If
approved, recruitment for the Airport Director position will commence immediately,
with hiring anticipated to be October 1, 2020. Three months of salary and benefits for
an Airport Director (Pay Grade m38) is an increase of $4,161 in 2020 if hired at Step C,
compared to the currently budgeted Airport Manager at Pay Grade m33, Step D. Should
there be a need to hire the position at Step D or E, the fiscal impact would be
approximately $6,087 and $8,080 respectively. Either fiscal impact is easily covered by
salary savings resulting from several current position vacancies at the Airport. Going
into the next biennium budget and beyond, the Airport has sufficient funding to cover
the ongoing expenditure of the promotion of the position.
CONCLUSION:
Approving the Public Works Department’s reorganization to create an Airport Division
will align the department divisions to better reflect the entire breadth of service it
provides. Promoting the Airport Manager position to an Airport Director will ensure the
new division has the appropriate leadership, authority and responsibility inherent to
accomplish the goals outlined by the Mayor, Council and Administration. Council’s
approval to hire the Airport Director position at either Step D or Step E, if deemed
necessary to secure the best candidate, will help expedite onboarding of the new
director and save Council and staff the need for another agenda bill requesting such
authorization.
cc: Ellen Bradley-Mak, Human Resources Risk Management Administrator
Jan Hawn, Administrative Services Administrator
Kari Roller, Fiscal Services Director
Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Division Director
Kim Gilman, Human Resources Labor Manager
Jason Anderson, Assistant Airport Manager
Janna Dinkelspiel, Senior Employee Relations Analyst
Misty Baker, Senior Finance Analyst
Stacy Robinson, Senior Finance Analyst
AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
P1EUCVCRI5 DERØRflVENf-qDMI%ISTRA11CN
Maintenance Services Director
Michael Stenhouse
Administrative Assistant
Linda Moschetti-Newing
Utility Systems Director
Ronald Straka
Public Works -Administrator
Martin Pastucha D
-C
I Transportation Systems Director’1
Jim Seitz J
(Airport Director
L Vacant
pWEPcfr,iri.apc Last MXfiCd 6/1/2020 AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AIRPORT DIVISION
Public Works Administrator
Martin Pastucha
Airport Director
Vacant
Administrative Secretary I
Vacant
OvU Engineer Ill
WIii Adams
Assistant Airport Manager
Jason Anderson
Airport Maintenance -&
r Operations Supervlso
-
-
Scott Babcock
Airport Operations Specialist
ttl Joseph Flore
Airport Malntenan ceWorker
stopher Donald Krame£hrl
Mesa
Business Coordinator
Vacant
lastMxlfled ,;,,vim AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
lLICA.Q R[v’fl%W
T
[sPortatlon Systems Dirj
Jim Seitz
Administrative Secretary i ‘1
Kelsey Marshall J
Secretary II 7
Alexandra Taylor J
—_______L
_________________
L
Transportation OPerationsJ 1 Transportation Maintenance 1
Manager Manager
Transportation Design I Transportation Planning
j
Manager
L
Manager
Chris Barnes Eric Cutshall Robert HansonJ Vangie Garcia
AdministratIve Secretar1 _rTransPortatlon
PlannerEngineeringSpecialistIllrAdminlsfrauveSecretaryI1
Josef Harnden J John Dan Hasty JBlakeCostaI1fIarketaTrubac(.5 FTE)
________________________
Ethan Belen I
_____________________________________________________
Slgnal/EctronIc System
Principal Civil Engineer C Program Development
Derek Akesson I Coordinator IISupervisor
Ronald Mar J _ial/Electronlc Systems
1
______________________________________________
Heather Gregersen JGregRyan
______________________
f
Civil Engineer Ill
______________________
Flora Lee
________________________
Hebe Bernardo
Clvii Engineer Ill
Civil Engineer III
Michelle Faltaous Bob Mahn (.5 FTE)JTechnIcianIll
Emily LoganJamesGarfield
Keith WoolleyBradJones
Kevin Kennedy
David Whitmarsh Jr.[Signal/Electronic System 1
Technician II I
Christian DeMarco
f Traffic Signage &Marking 1Supervisor
Russ Evans
{Trafflc Maintenance Worker Ill
John Wade
Traffic Maintenance Worker I ‘1
Cody Bartlett I 0RobertRaban
SophalSim j AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
AB - 2661
City Council Regular Meeting - 13 Jul 2020
SUBJECT/TITLE: Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for the Washington
State Department of Transportation Limited Access Right-of-Way
Runoff Impacts Characterization Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Utilities Committee
DEPARTMENT: Utility Systems Division
STAFF CONTACT: Gary Fink, Surface Water Utility Engineer
EXT.: 7392
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
Funding for this agreement in the amount of $170,009 is available from the Surface Water Utility Capital
Improvement Program budget (427.475519) as adjusted in the 2nd quarter of 2020. The project is funded
through stormwater fees paid by Washington State Department of Transportation for limited access right -of-
way into the 407 Fund and subsequently transferred to the 427 Fund. WSDOT stormwater fee payments are
projected to be approximately $192,000 over the term of this agreement.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The city currently charges surface water fees to WSDOT for the SR 167 and I-405 right-of-way within the city
limits. RCW 90.03.525 allows local municipalities to charge stormwater fees for state limited access highways
and was modified when Senate Bill 5505 was passed in 2019. The bill clarified the objectives of the
Stormwater Management Funding and Implementation Program for highway related runoff problems and
required charges paid by the state to local jurisdictions to be used solely for stormwater con trol facilities that
directly reduce state highway runoff impacts or implementation of best management practices that will
reduce the need for such facilities.
A plan and progress report are required to be submitted annually for WSDOT to pay stormwater f ees to the
city. The city initially submitted a draft fee allocation plan on December 31, 2019 that was ultimately rejected
by WSDOT. WSDOT recommended the city conduct a citywide study in 2020 to better understand drainage
from WSDOT right-of-way, determining where there are drainage impacts, and identifying the need for
facilities that directly reduce highway runoff impacts. WSDOT indicated that this study appears consistent
with the objectives identified in RCW 90.78.010 and thus could be funded with highway stormwater fees.
The Surface Water Utility has selected Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. to perform the drainage study, with
scheduled completion by end of 2021. This study will meet the intent of RCW 90.78.010 and enable the city to
keep collecting a stormwater fee for SR 167 and I-405. The scope of the study consists of characterization of
the runoff from limited access right-of-way away, identification of areas of significant impact and evaluation of
improvements that would benefit both the cit y's drainage system and WSDOT.
EXHIBITS:
A. Agreement
B. Vicinity Map
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Execute the agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $170,009 for the WSDOT Limited
Access Right-of-Way Runoff Impacts Characterization Study (SWP273077).
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
AGREEMENT FOR WSDOT LIMITED ACCESS ROW RUNOFF
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION STUDY SWP-27-3077
THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 1, 2020, is by and between the City of Renton (the “City”), a
Washington municipal corporation, and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Consultant”), a
corporation. The City and the Consultant are referred to collectively in this Agreement as the
“Parties.” Once fully executed by the Parties, this Agreement is effective as of the last date signed
by both parties.
1. Scope of Work: Consultant agrees to provide Consulting Services as specified in Exhibit
A, which is attached and incorporated herein and may hereinafter be referred to as the
“Work.”
2. Changes in Scope of Work: The City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order
changes to the Work consisting of additions, deletions or modifications. Any such changes
to the Work shall be ordered by the City in writing and the Compensation shall be
equitably adjusted consistent with the rates set forth in Exhibit C or as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Parties.
3. Time of Performance: Consultant shall commence performance of the Agreement
pursuant to the schedule(s) set forth in Exhibit B. All Work shall be performed by no later
than December 31, 2021.
4. Compensation:
A. Amount. Total compensation to Consultant for Work provided pursuant to this
Agreement shall not exceed $170,009.00, plus any applicable state and local sales
taxes. Compensation shall be paid based upon Work actually performed according to
the rate(s) or amounts specified in Exhibit C. The Consultant agrees that any hourly or
flat rate charged by it for its Work shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) unless
otherwise agreed to in writing or provided in Exhibit C. Except as specifically provided
herein, the Consultant shall be solely responsible for payment of any taxes imposed
as a result of the performance and payment of this Agreement.
B. Method of Payment. On a monthly or no less than quarterly basis during any quarter
in which Work is performed, the Consultant shall submit a voucher or invoice in a form
specified by the City, including a description of what Work has been performed, the
name of the personnel performing such Work, and any hourly labor charge rate for
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 2 OF 10
such personnel. The Consultant shall also submit a final bill upon completion of all
Work. Payment shall be made by the City for Work performed within thirty (30)
calendar days after receipt and approval by the appropriate City representative of the
voucher or invoice. If the Consultant’s performance does not meet the requirements
of this Agreement, the Consultant will correct or modify its performance to comply
with the Agreement. The City may withhold payment for work that does not meet the
requirements of this Agreement.
C. Effect of Payment. Payment for any part of the Work shall not constitute a waiver by
the City of any remedies it may have against the Consultant for failure of the
Consultant to perform the Work or for any breach of this Agreement by the
Consultant.
D. Non-Appropriation of Funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or allocated for
payment under this Agreement for any future fiscal period, the City shall not be
obligated to make payments for Work or amounts incurred after the end of the
current fiscal period, and this Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all
remaining Work for which funds are allocated. No penalty or expense shall accrue to
the City in the event this provision applies.
5. Termination:
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without
cause by giving ten (10) calendar days’ notice to the Consultant in writing. In the event
of such termination or suspension, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
worksheets, models and reports, or other material prepared by the Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to the City, if any are required as part
of the Work.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City, the Consultant shall be entitled
to payment for all hours worked to the effective date of termination, less all payments
previously made. If the Agreement is terminated by the City after partial performance
of Work for which the agreed compensation is a fixed fee, the City shall pay the
Consultant an equitable share of the fixed fee. This provision shall not prevent the
City from seeking any legal remedies it may have for the violation or nonperformance
of any of the provisions of this Agreement and such charges due to the City shall be
deducted from the final payment due the Consultant. No payment shall be made by
the City for any expenses incurred or work done following the effective date of
termination unless authorized in advance in writing by the City.
6. Warranties And Right To Use Work Product: Consultant represents and warrants that
Consultant will perform all Work identified in this Agreement in a professional and
workmanlike manner and in accordance with all reasonable and professional standards
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 3 OF 10
and laws. Compliance with professional standards includes, as applicable, performing the
Work in compliance with applicable City standards or guidelines (e.g. design criteria and
Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction). Professional engineers shall
certify engineering plans, specifications, plats, and reports, as applicable, pursuant to
RCW 18.43.070. Consultant further represents and warrants that all final work product
created for and delivered to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be the original work
of the Consultant and free from any intellectual property encumbrance which would
restrict the City from using the work product. Consultant grants to the City a non-
exclusive, perpetual right and license to use, reproduce, distribute, adapt, modify, and
display all final work product produced pursuant to this Agreement. The City’s or other’s
adaptation, modification or use of the final work products other than for the purposes of
this Agreement shall be without liability to the Consultant. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
7. Record Maintenance: The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which
properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and Work provided in the
performance of this Agreement and retain such records for as long as may be required by
applicable Washington State records retention laws, but in any event no less than six
years after the termination of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access
to and copies of any records related to this Agreement as required by the City to audit
expenditures and charges and/or to comply with the Washington State Public Records Act
(Chapter 42.56 RCW). The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
8. Public Records Compliance: To the full extent the City determines necessary to comply
with the Washington State Public Records Act, Consultant shall make a due diligent search
of all records in its possession or control relating to this Agreement and the Work,
including, but not limited to, e-mail, correspondence, notes, saved telephone messages,
recordings, photos, or drawings and provide them to the City for production. In the event
Consultant believes said records need to be protected from disclosure, it may, at
Consultant’s own expense, seek judicial protection. Consultant shall indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the City for all costs, including attorneys’ fees, attendant to any claim
or litigation related to a Public Records Act request for which Consultant has responsive
records and for which Consultant has withheld records or information contained therein,
or not provided them to the City in a timely manner. Consultant shall produce for
distribution any and all records responsive to the Public Records Act request in a timely
manner, unless those records are protected by court order. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
9. Independent Contractor Relationship:
A. The Consultant is retained by the City only for the purposes and to the extent set forth
in this Agreement. The nature of the relationship between the Consultant and the City
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 4 OF 10
during the period of the Work shall be that of an independent contractor, not
employee. The Consultant, not the City, shall have the power to control and direct the
details, manner or means of Work. Specifically, but not by means of limitation, the
Consultant shall have no obligation to work any particular hours or particular
schedule, unless otherwise indicated in the Scope of Work or where scheduling of
attendance or performance is mutually arranged due to the nature of the Work.
Consultant shall retain the right to designate the means of performing the Work
covered by this agreement, and the Consultant shall be entitled to employ other
workers at such compensation and such other conditions as it may deem proper,
provided, however, that any contract so made by the Consultant is to be paid by it
alone, and that employing such workers, it is acting individually and not as an agent
for the City.
B. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal
income tax or Social Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance
Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to Consultant
or any employee of the Consultant.
C. If the Consultant is a sole proprietorship or if this Agreement is with an individual, the
Consultant agrees to notify the City and complete any required form if the Consultant
retired under a State of Washington retirement system and agrees to indemnify any
losses the City may sustain through the Consultant’s failure to do so.
10. Hold Harmless: The Consultant agrees to release, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
the City, elected officials, employees, officers, representatives, and volunteers from any
and all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, arbitrations, mediations,
proceedings, judgments, awards, injuries, damages, liabilities, taxes, losses, fines, fees,
penalties, expenses, attorney’s or attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or litigation expenses to or
by any and all persons or entities, arising from, resulting from, or related to the negligent
acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in its performance of this Agreement or a
breach of this Agreement by Consultant, except for that portion of the claims caused by
the City’s sole negligence.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, (Validity of agreement to indemnify against liability for negligence relative to
construction, alteration, improvement, etc., of structure or improvement attached to real
estate…) then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons
or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the
Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, Consultant’s
liability shall be only to the extent of Consultant’s negligence.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 5 OF 10
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided in
this Agreement constitute Consultant’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial
Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. The Parties
have mutually negotiated and agreed to this waiver. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
11. Gifts and Conflicts: The City’s Code of Ethics and Washington State law prohibit City
employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving any gift, gratuity or favor from any
person, firm or corporation involved in a contract or transaction. To ensure compliance
with the City’s Code of Ethics and state law, the Consultant shall not give a gift of any kind
to City employees or officials. Consultant also confirms that Consultant does not have a
business interest or a close family relationship with any City officer or employee who was,
is, or will be involved in selecting the Consultant, negotiating or administering this
Agreement, or evaluating the Consultant’s performance of the Work.
12. City of Renton Business License: The Consultant shall obtain a City of Renton Business
License prior to performing any Work and maintain the business license in good standing
throughout the term of this agreement with the City.
Information regarding acquiring a city business license can be found at:
http://www.rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9824882
Information regarding State business licensing requirements can be found at:
http://dor.wa.gov/doing-business/register-my-business
13. Insurance: Consultant shall secure and maintain:
A. Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of $1,000,000 for
each occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate for the Term of this Agreement.
B. In the event that Work delivered pursuant to this Agreement either directly or
indirectly involve or require Professional Services, Professional Liability, Errors and
Omissions coverage shall be provided with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per
occurrence. "Professional Services", for the purpose of this section, shall mean any
Work provided by a licensed professional or Work that requires a professional
standard of care.
C. Workers’ compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the
State of Washington, shall also be secured.
D. Commercial Automobile Liability for owned, leased, hired or non-owned, leased, hired
or non-owned, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 6 OF 10
limit, if there will be any use of Consultant’s vehicles on the City’s Premises by or on
behalf of the City, beyond normal commutes.
E. Consultant shall name the City as an Additional Insured on its commercial general
liability policy on a non-contributory primary basis. The City’s insurance policies shall
not be a source for payment of any Consultant liability, nor shall the maintenance of
any insurance required by this Agreement be construed to limit the liability of
Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City’s
recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
F. Subject to the City’s review and acceptance, a certificate of insurance showing the
proper endorsements, shall be delivered to the City before performing the Work.
G. Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within
two (2) business days of their receipt of such notice.
14. Delays: Consultant is not responsible for delays caused by factors beyond the
Consultant’s reasonable control. When such delays beyond the Consultant’s reasonable
control occur, the City agrees the Consultant is not responsible for damages, nor shall the
Consultant be deemed to be in default of the Agreement.
15. Successors and Assigns: Neither the City nor the Consultant shall assign, transfer or
encumber any rights, duties or interests accruing from this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
16. Notices: Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the
appropriate party at the address which appears below (as modified in writing from time
to time by such party), and given personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, by facsimile or by nationally recognized overnight courier service. Time period
for notices shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date of receipt, EXCEPT
facsimile delivery will be deemed to have commenced on the first business day following
transmission. Email and telephone may be used for purposes of administering the
Agreement, but should not be used to give any formal notice required by the Agreement.
CITY OF RENTON
Gary Fink
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7392
gfink@rentonwa.gov
CONSULTANT
Jesse Williams
1100 112th Ave NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 453-5000
Jesse.Williams@Jacobs.com
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 7 OF 10
17. Discrimination Prohibited: Except to the extent permitted by a bona fide occupational
qualification, the Consultant agrees as follows:
A. Consultant, and Consultant’s agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers
with regard to the Work performed or to be performed under this Agreement, shall
not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital
status, sexual orientation or preference, age (except minimum age and retirement
provisions), honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any
sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification in relationship to hiring and employment, in employment or application
for employment, the administration of the delivery of Work or any other benefits
under this Agreement, or procurement of materials or supplies.
B. The Consultant will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed,
color, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical, sensory or mental
handicaps, or marital status. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the
following employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and
selection for training.
C. If the Consultant fails to comply with any of this Agreement’s non-discrimination
provisions, the City shall have the right, at its option, to cancel the Agreement in
whole or in part.
D. The Consultant is responsible to be aware of and in compliance with all federal, state
and local laws and regulations that may affect the satisfactory completion of the
project, which includes but is not limited to fair labor laws, worker's compensation,
and Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and will comply with City of Renton
Council Resolution Number 4085.
18. Miscellaneous: The parties hereby acknowledge:
A. The City is not responsible to train or provide training for Consultant.
B. Consultant will not be reimbursed for job related expenses except to the extent
specifically agreed within the attached exhibits.
C. Consultant shall furnish all tools and/or materials necessary to perform the Work
except to the extent specifically agreed within the attached exhibits.
D. In the event special training, licensing, or certification is required for Consultant to
provide Work he/she will acquire or maintain such at his/her own expense and, if
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 8 OF 10
Consultant employs, sub-contracts, or otherwise assigns the responsibility to perform
the Work, said employee/sub-contractor/assignee will acquire and or maintain such
training, licensing, or certification.
E. This is a non-exclusive agreement and Consultant is free to provide his/her Work to
other entities, so long as there is no interruption or interference with the provision of
Work called for in this Agreement.
F. Consultant is responsible for his/her own insurance, including, but not limited to
health insurance.
G. Consultant is responsible for his/her own Worker’s Compensation coverage as well as
that for any persons employed by the Consultant.
19. Other Provisions:
A. Approval Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City
and Consultant represents and warrants that such individuals are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the City or Consultant.
B. General Administration and Management. The City’s project manager is Gary Fink. In
providing Work, Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s contract manager or
his/her designee.
C. Amendment and Modification. This Agreement may be amended only by an
instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties.
D. Conflicts. In the event of any inconsistencies between Consultant proposals and this
Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. Any exhibits/attachments to
this Agreement are incorporated by reference only to the extent of the purpose for
which they are referenced within this Agreement. To the extent a Consultant
prepared exhibit conflicts with the terms in the body of this Agreement or contains
terms that are extraneous to the purpose for which it is referenced, the terms in the
body of this Agreement shall prevail and the extraneous terms shall not be
incorporated herein.
E. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be made in and shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the City of
Renton. Consultant and all of the Consultant’s employees shall perform the Work in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and
ordinances.
F. Joint Drafting Effort. This Agreement shall be considered for all purposes as prepared
by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one party or the
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 9 OF 10
other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of
negotiation, drafting or execution.
G. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action brought by any party to enforce or
interpret this Agreement or any of its terms or covenants shall be brought in the King
County Superior Court for the State of Washington at the Maleng Regional Justice
Center in Kent, King County, Washington, or its replacement or successor. Consultant
hereby expressly consents to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of
such court even if Consultant is a foreign corporation not registered with the State of
Washington.
H. Severability. A court of competent jurisdiction’s determination that any provision or
part of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable shall not cancel or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect.
I. Sole and Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the
Parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not
incorporated are excluded.
J. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and all of
its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates set
forth in the description of the Work is essential to the Consultant’s performance of
this Agreement.
K. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits in the Agreement to anyone other than the
Parties, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will
be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and no one else.
L. Binding Effect. The Parties each bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns,
and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement, and to the partners,
successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all
covenants of the Agreement.
M. Waivers. All waivers shall be in writing and signed by the waiving party. Either party’s
failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver and shall not
prevent either the City or Consultant from enforcing that provision or any other
provision of this Agreement in the future. Waiver of breach of any provision of this
Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach
unless it is expressly waived in writing.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
PAGE 10 OF 10
N. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together
constitute this one Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have voluntarily entered into this Agreement as of the date
last signed by the Parties below.
CITY OF RENTON
By:_____________________________
CONSULTANT
By:____________________________
Armondo Pavone
Mayor
Stacy L. Bumback
Manager of Projects
_____________________________
Date
_____________________________
Date
Attest
_____________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Approved as to Legal Form
By: __________________________
Shane Moloney
Renton City Attorney
Contract Template Updated 03/12/2019 (clb 939/1226)
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Exhibit A
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
SCOPE OF WORK
WSDOT Limited Access ROW Runoff Impacts Characterization Study
FOR CITY OF RENTON
May 15, 2020
Introduction
The City of Renton (“City”) has requested Jacobs (“Consultant”) assist the City in developing a study of
impacts of stormwater runoff from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) limited
access right-of-way (LAROW). The study will identify where runoff from WSDOT LAROW enters the
Renton system, identify system impacts from that ROW, and may prioritize watersheds for mitigation or
may lead directly to concept development. This study will support the City’s 2020 Stormwater Utility
Fee Allocation Plan.
Background
RCW 90.03.525 allows local municipalities to charge stormwater fees for State limited access highways
and was modified when Senate bill 5505 was passed in 2019. The bill clarified the objectives of the
Stormwater Management Funding and Implementation Program for Highway-Related Problems and
required a 2020 Stormwater Utility Fee Allocation Plan (Plan) and progress report to be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The Plan and progress report are required
for WSDOT to calculate and pay their stormwater fee to the utility in 2020.
The City submitted a draft Plan on December 31st, 2019 proposing WSDOT fees for three stormwater
projects pursuant to the qualifications of the revised RCW. However, clarifications from the State
Attorney General’s Office required additional information to confirm that the projects directly reduced
highway runoff impacts and therefore could be funded with highway stormwater fees. WSDOT
recommended the City conduct a City-wide study in 2020 to better understand drainage from WSDOT
LAJROW, determining where there are drainage impacts, and identifying the need for facilities that
directly reduce highway runoff impacts. WSDOT indicated that this study appears consistent with the
objectives identified in RCW 90.78.010 and thus could be funded with highway stormwater fees.
Task 1. Project Management
Perform project management, administration, and coordination of work effort involved in all phases and
tasks. This task will continue throughout the duration of the project. It will include the work necessary to
set up financial accounting, develop and implement quality procedures, perform overall project
coordination with the CITY and project team, and project closeout.
Invoices and progress reports will be provided to the CITY on a monthly basis. Monthly progress reports
will include a summary of work performed by the CONSULTANT for that period and the work anticipated
to be completed in the next period. Monthly progress phone calls between the CONSULTANT and the
CITY will take place as needed to discuss project status and resolve any outstanding issues.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
QA/QC: Consultant shall conduct internal quality control regarding collection of data, map preparation,
and all other tasks.
Task 1 Assumptions
• Project duration is assumed to be 19 months.
• Neither a formal project management plan (PMP) or quality management plan (QMP) will be
developed. Simple project instructions will be prepared for the team, and Jacobs best practices
will be implemented for project and quality management.
Task 1 Deliverables
• Monthly Invoices and Progress Reports (sent electronically via e-mail)
• 30-minute monthly phone call or email check-ins with the City project manager to report project
status
Task 2 WSDOT Limited Access ROW Characterization
Consultant shall prepare a stormwater and catchment characterization of WSDOT Limited
Access right-of-way (LAROW) within the City of Renton in accordance with SB 5505 (see
background above). Work under this task shall include conducting a kickoff meeting, review
of existing as-built plans (as available), limited field investigation (as required), review of
current mapping of the WSDOT drainage system discharges to the City of Renton system
and of downstream city-owned stormwater infrastructure and water bodies, and a summary
of drainage impacts, issues and mitigation needs associated with runoff from WSDOT
LAROW.
Subtask 2.1 Kick-off Meeting
Consultant shall prepare for and participate in a kick-off meeting with the City of Renton to
define key objectives, milestones, scope of the study area and impacts evaluated and
confirm the eligibility of projects, studies and activities that can be funded by WSDOT
stormwater fees.
Subtask 2.2 Review Existing Information
Consultant shall review existing information, and conduct limited field investigation if
necessary to confirm conditions, to characterize the drainage area from WSDOT LAROW
within the City of Renton, identify downstream infrastructure and water bodies and
characterize impacts and issues in the City of Renton system downstream from WSDOT
LAROW. Information to be reviewed may include, but is not limited to:
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
• GIS data, hosted in CORMaps
• Existing Studies/Reports including relevant stormwater masterplans including the
Renton Stormwater Master Plan
• Existing Water Quality and Monitoring Data
• Drainage Complaints
• Spill Response Reports
• WSDOT drainage reports and as-builts (limited review if required to determine type
of existing flow control or water quality treatment facilities)
Subtask 2.3 Stormwater System Mapping
Consultant shall develop a GIS map of the WSDOT LAROW discharges to the downstream
City of Renton system. Mapping shall include the following information if available:
• WSDOT Areas receiving water quality treatment prior to discharge to the City system.
If possible, the type or level of water quality treatment (basic, enhanced, etc.) will be
listed.
• Areas receiving flow control prior to discharge to the City system. If possible, the
type or level of flow control (Peak, duration, etc.) will be listed.
• General delineation of WSDOT catchments discharging to major receiving waters (i.e.
Cedar River, Springbrook Creek, Lake Washington, City of Renton Stormwater system,
etc.)
• WSDOT areas discharging to City of Renton Stormwater Control or Treatment
facilities.
• Proximity of WSDOT discharge to known stormwater issues (i.e. localized flooding,
erosion, spills, impaired waters, drainage complaints, etc.)
Subtask 2.4 WSDOT Limited Access ROW Stormwater Discharge Characterization
Technical Memorandum
Consultant shall document the findings of Task 2 in a brief technical memorandum
summarizing the data sources and gaps, methods and results of system mapping and a
summary of key stormwater impacts or issues requiring mitigation.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Task 2 Assumptions
• As the precise number of drainage connections and stormwater facilities to be
reviewed is unknown at this time, and the number of as-built plans and reports is
also unknown, the level of detail of the review of existing information and the level
of detail to describe known or suspected impacts will be adjusted as necessary to
meet the overall Task budget.
• WSDOT LAROW includes Interstate 405 and State Route 167 within City limits.
• Field work will be limited to City of Renton ROW or real property and will not require
access to flow control or treatment facilities located within WSDOT LAROW.
• This task includes a project kick-off meeting at the CITY with two (2) CONSULTANT
attendees, assuming Two (2) hours in length.
• Maps will be developed using existing available data from City GIS, reports or
basemap files. No additional potholing, surveying or GPS mapping will be
conducted to develop maps. Critical discrepancies will be investigated upon
approval of the City up to the budget provided herein or separately authorized.
Non-critical and other data gaps will be documented in the technical memorandum.
• No additional modeling or monitoring will be performed under this contract without
separate authorization and change management.
• Up to 84 hours are included in the budget to perform field work to confirm
information gathered.
• Up to 172 hours are included in the budget to review existing information.
• Data collected will be collated into a SharePoint directory for transfer to the City.
• GIS mapping data will be delivered electronically via a map package on ArcGIS
Online.
• Catchments less than 2 acres discharging to the local City of Renton Stormwater
system may be combined and have limited detail given on delineation of the
individual downstream systems.
Task 2 Deliverables
• WSDOT LAROW Stormwater System Discharge Map (sent electronically via e-mail or file
transfer)
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
• WSDOT LAROW Stormwater Discharge Characterization Technical Memorandum
(Draft and Final, sent electronically via e-mail or file transfer)
Task 3 Opportunities Analysis and Prioritization
Work under Task 3 is described herein for budgeting purposes and will not commence until
it has been authorized and approved by the City of Renton project manager upon
completion of Task 2. Refer to Task 3 Assumptions stated below.
Subtask 3.1 Solutions Toolbox
Consultant will conduct a review of available stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP)
technologies and summarize potential options for mitigating impacts of runoff from WSDOT
LAROW in the context of the stormwater impacts, issues, and needs identified under Task 2.
Consultant will coordinate with City of Renton Operations and Maintenance to confirm
acceptable BMP maintenance activities and frequency.
Subtask 3.2 Opportunities Map
Consultant will prepare an Opportunities Map with GIS. Consultant will review the following
information and identify potential opportunities to mitigate WSDOT impacts identified in
Task 2:
Renton SW Master Plan/CIP projects
Renton Planning projects (incl. Transportation, Parks, Community
Development, etc.)
Potential areas for infiltration
Open space or underutilized parcels
Subtask 3.3 Prioritization Workshop
Consultant will facilitate a workshop to identify prioritization. This workshop will present the
WSDOT LAROW Stormwater System Discharge Map, summarize data available to be used in
watershed or project prioritization, and identify a framework for prioritizing retrofit
opportunities.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Subtask 3.4 Detailed Subarea Plan
Upon completion of Task 2, the Consultant may conduct a detailed subarea plan for a
portion of WSDOT LAROW and the downstream City of Renton basin to prioritize the
development of a capital improvement plan for future allocation of WSDOT stormwater fees.
(For example, prepare a detailed subarea plan for the portion of basin in the proximity of I-
405 and SE 4th Avenue.)
Subtask 3.5 Concept Design, Prioritization, Partnering and Funding Opportunities
To facilitate and accelerate future implementation of projects utilizing WSDOT Stormwater
Fees pursuant to SB 5505, the Consultant may conduct early prioritization of opportunities
under this subtask, identify and coordinate opportunities for partnering with other private or
public infrastructure projects to co-locate or cost share improvements, develop concept
designs and cost estimates, and identify and apply for funding for future projects.
Task 3 Assumptions
• The precise work to be performed under Task 3 and associated level of effort is
unknown until Task 2 is complete. An estimate of tasks and hours has been
provided for budget purposes; scope and related level of effort will be reviewed with
City of Renton staff and adjusted via an amendment if the current allocated budget
is insufficient for the tasks or if different scope is desired by the City.
Task 3 Deliverables
• Stormwater Solutions Toolbox
• Opportunities Map
• Prioritization Workshop Agenda and Meeting Notes
• Detailed Subarea Plan(s), as applicable
• Concept Designs, as applicable
• Technical memoranda documenting prioritization, partnering and funding
opportunities, and recommended next steps
Deliverables will be sent electronically via e-mail or file transfer depending on file size.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
General Assumptions Applicable to All Tasks
1. The City will be responsible for the timely collection of comments from reviewers, and resolving
conflicting comments, and shall submit one set of consolidated comments to CONSULTANT for each
deliverable. Comments will be provided within 2 weeks of submission and will be provided with
comments or tracked changes in the native document or in a consolidated excel spreadsheets.
CONSULTANT’S responses will be provided in the original comment document.
2. The City will provide legal, administrative, and financial review and support for documents
developed prior to the use of such documents for submission to WSDOT or for use for future
planning. The CONSULTANT is not the City’s legal advisor and cannot provide legal counsel to the
City.
3. CONSULTANT will reasonably rely upon the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the
information provided by the City. CONSULTANT will keep the City informed on effects to the
schedule.
4. CONSULTANT makes no warranty that the City’s actual cost, performance, or schedules will not vary
from CONSULTANT’s opinions of cost, projections, or estimates. In providing opinions of stormwater
impact, cost, stormwater mitigation, and schedules for the project, CONSULTANT has no control
over cost or price of labor and materials; unknown or latent conditions of existing equipment or
structures that may affect operation or maintenance costs; competitive bidding procedures and
market conditions; time or quality of performance by operating personnel or third parties; and other
economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate project cost, performance,
or schedule. If the City wishes greater assurance as to any element of project cost, feasibility, or
schedule, the City will employ an independent cost estimator, contractor, or other appropriate
advisor.
5. CONSULTANT’s level of effort shall not exceed that provided in the Fee Estimate.
6. The full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not fully known at this time. The schedule and cost
estimate for the work outlined in this proposal are based on typical project delivery estimates and
assumptions without taking into consideration any schedule or cost impacts resulting from any
COVID-19 federal, state, or local restrictions or guidelines. Any schedule delays or cost impacts
resulting from COVID-19 restrictions will be assessed by the CONSULTANT and communicated to the
City, and vice versa.
7. The City will prepare and submit the 2020 and subsequent Stormwater Utility Fee Allocation Plan as
necessary. Neither preparation or submission of the Stormwater Utility Fee Allocation Plan is
included in this scope of work.
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Exhibit B
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
The Estimated Schedule for WSDOT Limited Access ROW Runoff Impacts Characterization
Study is:
• Notice to Proceed –June 2020
• Phase 1: WSDOT Limited Access ROW Characterization – June 2020 to December 2020
• Phase 2: Opportunities Identification and Prioritization – January 2021 to December 2021
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
Exhibit C
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
FEE ESTIMATE
Table 1 of this Exhibit C shows the basis for the CONSULTANT’S not-to-exceed fee estimate for the
WSDOT Limited Access ROW Runoff Impacts Characterization Study. The CONSULTANT’S fee will be time
and materials, with no mark-up on expenses.
Table 2 shows the key CONSULTANT staff anticipated to work on the project.
TABLE 1 Basis of CONSULTANT’S Fee Estimate for the WSDOT LAROW Runoff Impacts Characterization Study
Labor Hours Labor Total Expenses Total
Task 1 Project Management 74 $13,765 - $13,765
Task 2 WSDOT LAROW Characterization 660 $78,270 $300 $78,570
Task 3 Opportunities Analysis and
Prioritization
608 $77,574 $100 $77,674
TOTAL 1,342 $169,609 $400 $170,009
TABLE 2 Key Consultant Staff Anticipated to Work on the WSDOT LAROW Runoff Impacts Characterization Study
Jacobs Staff Project Role
Jesse Williams, PE Project Manager/Study Lead
Dustin Atchison, PE Principal, Advisor, QC
Amy Carlson, PE Opportunities Prioritization
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
72,22412037
WSDOT LTD ACCESS ROW RUNOFF IMPACTS CHAR STUDY AREA
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,
current, or otherwise reliable.
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Notes
None
6/15/2020
Legend
8185 4093
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Feet8185
Information Technology - GIS
0
RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov
City and County Labels
City and County Boundary
County Waterbody
County Freeway
County Admin Area
Incorporated
King County
County Background
RoadCenterline_72K
Freeway, Ground Level
Freeway, 1st Level
Highway, 1st level
Highway, Ground level
Collector, Ground level
Collector, 1st level
Ramp, Ground Level
Ramp, First Level
Parking Lot
Parking
Walking Path
Landscape Areas
Sand
Grass
AirportPoly
Renton Airport Runway
Renton Municipal Airport
WaterBodies
Waterlines
Pipe
River
Stream
MDOW Hillshade
High : 255
AGENDA ITEM #5. f)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2020-
2025 KING COUNTY REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY’S ANNEX THERETO, AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF RENTON PLAN
ANNEX.
WHEREAS, the City and the surrounding areas are subject to a wide range of natural and
anthropogenic hazards, including floods, winter storms, earthquakes, landslides, hazardous
material spills and more; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, a partnership between King County and 55 different entities,
including the City of Renton, schools, fire districts, hospitals, and utility districts created the King
County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (“the Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Plan, and City’s annex to the Plan, was adopted by the City Council on
February 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Federal rules require the Plan be updated every five years; and
WHEREAS, FEMA has approved the draft 2020-2025 King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (“the 2020-2025 Plan”) and it is expected King County will formally adopt the
2020-2025 Plan in July, 2020; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for City Council to adopt the 2020-2025 Plan and authorize the
City of Renton’s annex thereto, and adopt the City of Renton Plan Annex;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
SECTION I. The City Council adopts the 2020-2025 Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated by this reference, as adopted by the King County Council in July 2020.
SECTION II. The City Council authorizes the City to annex to the 2020-2025 Plan and
adopts the City of Renton Plan Annex, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this
reference.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2020.
______________________________
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2020.
______________________________
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1854:6/29/2020
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
3
EXHIBIT A
2020-2025 KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
2020-2025
King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Mitigation Plan Priorities: .................................................................................................................................. 10
Timeline ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Revisions from 2015 Edition ............................................................................................................................ 11
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapters ..................................................................................................... 11
Hazard Mitigation Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 13
Mitigation Planning Partner Engagement ....................................................................................................... 15
Jurisdiction Plan Annex Process ....................................................................................................................... 16
Review and Incorporation of Reports and Studies ........................................................................................ 16
King County Plan Update Timeline ................................................................................................................. 17
Support for Community Rating System (CRS) Communities ..................................................................... 20
Public Outreach Process .................................................................................................................................... 21
Continued Public Participation ......................................................................................................................... 26
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Program Capabilities ..................................................................... 27
Plan Integration ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Program and Policy Capabilities ....................................................................................................................... 31
Integration with Departments and other Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 35
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding .......................................................................................... 37
King County Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program ....................................................................... 41
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program ............................................................................... 41
Participation in CRS ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Regional Risk and Probability Summaries....................................................................................................... 43
Risk Assessment Overview .................................................................................................................................... 45
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 46
Data ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Vulnerable Populations and Population-Based Vulnerability ...................................................................... 49
Determinants of Population Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 49
Jurisdiction-Specific Risk Assessments ............................................................................................................ 52
King County Development Trends and Risk Trajectory .............................................................................. 53
Regional Risk Profile: Avalanche .......................................................................................................................... 56
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 57
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Regional Risk Profile: Civil Disorder ................................................................................................................... 62
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 63
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Regional Risk Profile: Cyber Incident .................................................................................................................. 68
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 68
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 70
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 72
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 75
Regional Risk Profile: Dam Failure ...................................................................................................................... 78
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
3
Hazard Description ............................................................................................................................................ 78
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences .............................................................................. 82
Scenario Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 83
Priority Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 85
Priority Impact Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 86
Full List of Dams That Impact King County ................................................................................................. 90
Regional Risk Profile: Earthquake ...................................................................................................................... 101
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 101
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 101
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 104
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 106
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Regional Risk Profile: Flood ................................................................................................................................ 119
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 119
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 120
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 123
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 127
Regional Risk Profile: Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 132
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 132
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 134
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 135
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 136
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 137
Regional Risk Profile: Health Incident ............................................................................................................... 140
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
4
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 140
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 141
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 142
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 144
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 144
Regional Risk Profile: Landslide.......................................................................................................................... 146
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 146
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 147
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 149
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 150
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 151
Regional Risk Profile: Severe Weather ............................................................................................................... 154
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 154
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 154
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 157
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 158
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 160
Regional Risk Profile: Terrorism ......................................................................................................................... 166
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 166
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 167
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 171
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 172
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 172
Regional Risk Profile: Tsunami and Seiche ....................................................................................................... 175
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 175
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
5
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 176
Tsunami Scenario Drivers ............................................................................................................................... 178
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 179
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 179
Regional Risk Profile: Volcano ............................................................................................................................ 182
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 182
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 183
Summary of Hazard Effects ............................................................................................................................ 185
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 185
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 186
Regional Risk Profile: Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 190
Hazard Description .......................................................................................................................................... 190
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences ............................................................................ 193
Scenario Drivers ................................................................................................................................................ 194
Priority Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 195
Priority Impact Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 196
Hazard Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 199
Mitigation Plan Goals: ...................................................................................................................................... 200
Mitigation Plan Goals - 14 Determinants of Equity .................................................................................... 200
Mitigation Plan Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 201
Mitigation Plan Projects ................................................................................................................................... 202
Prioritizing Hazard Mitigation Projects ......................................................................................................... 202
Crosswalk with the Strategic Climate Action Plan ....................................................................................... 204
Ongoing Plan Maintenance and Strategy Updates ...................................................................................... 205
Plan Approval and Adoption .......................................................................................................................... 207
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
6
Mitigation Strategy Status Updates from the 2015 Plan ............................................................................. 208
2020 King County Hazard Mitigation Strategies ......................................................................................... 222
Reduce Flood Impacts to the Unincorporated King County Road System ............................................ 227
Increase Seismic Resilience of Bridges in Unincorporated King County ................................................ 228
Stormwater Outfall Erosion Hazard Inventory ........................................................................................... 229
Resilience in Design and Build of Critical Water Treatment and Conveyance Facilities ....................... 231
Landslide, Erosion, and Sedimentation Event Mapping ............................................................................ 232
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction.................................................................. 234
Sea Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities ....................................................................................... 236
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction.................................................................. 237
Control System Security and Performance ................................................................................................... 239
GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data ............................................................... 240
Emergency Communications Enhancements .............................................................................................. 241
Emergency Event Management System ........................................................................................................ 242
Flood Warning Program .................................................................................................................................. 243
Post-Flood Recovery Efforts .......................................................................................................................... 244
Home Elevations .............................................................................................................................................. 245
Home Acquisitions and Relocations .............................................................................................................. 247
Protect and Restore Natural Floodplain Functions ..................................................................................... 248
Flood Risk Mapping ......................................................................................................................................... 250
Public Information Flood Activities .............................................................................................................. 252
Flood Insurance Promotion ............................................................................................................................ 253
Enforce Higher Floodplain Management Regulations ............................................................................... 254
Manage Flood Protection Facilities ................................................................................................................ 256
Seismic Evaluation of King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center ......................... 257
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
7
Integrate ESJ into Mitigation, Response, and Recovery Activities ........................................................... 258
Seismic Lifeline Route Resilience ................................................................................................................... 260
Integrate Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Planning ....................................................................... 261
Engage Community Organizations in Emergency Management .............................................................. 262
Climate Integration Training ........................................................................................................................... 263
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training ........................................................................................................ 264
Dam Failure Risk and Impact Reduction ...................................................................................................... 265
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction ................................................................................................... 266
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Support .............................................................................................. 267
Public Assistance Grant Support .................................................................................................................... 268
Language Accessible Video Emergency Messaging..................................................................................... 270
King County Facilities Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Network ............................................................. 271
Medical Gas Seismic Detection & Emergency Shut Off ............................................................................ 273
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
8
Executive Summary
The King County Hazard Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan promotes programs and projects that partner
with communities to build a foundation of resilience before, during, and after disasters. Hazard
mitigation is the mission area of emergency management that argues life safety is not good enough. Disasters
are not foregone conclusions. Incidents will always occur, but their impact is within our ability to change
if we target investments in areas that will reinforce those areas most critical to our community, thereby
making us all more resilient.
For the 2020 Plan, we identify investments and opportunities to strengthen 14 determinants1 of equity
and social justice, areas the whole community has identified as necessary to make King County a welcoming
community where every person can thrive.
1. Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2. Access to Health and Human Services
3. Access to Parks and Natural Resources
4. Access to Safe and Efficient Transportation
5. Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6. Community and Public Safety
7. Early Childhood Development
8. Economic Development
9. Equitable Law and Justice System
10. Equity in Government Practices
11. Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12. Healthy Built and Natural Environments
13. Quality Education
14. Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
We can strengthen and support each of these areas through investments in better land use practices,
stronger infrastructure, healthy habitats and systems, improved accessibility, and individual and family
resilience. The hazard mitigation strategies contained in this plan will each be reported on biannually to
help provide updates on areas where investments would be most critical.
In addition to hazard mitigation strategies, this plan includes risk profiles designed to provide an
overview of the key priorities, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts of natural and human-caused
hazards. We examine risk in terms of property, the economy, natural systems, infrastructure systems,
government operations, and populations, with a focus on populations more likely to suffer losses or long
recovery times from a disaster.
1 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice. 2016. Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan. Accessed online on
11/13/19 from https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/strategic-plan.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
9
Finally, this plan lays out a process to identify and prioritize hazard mitigation projects over the long
term and to increase investment in communities that are more vulnerable to disasters. We do this by
taking a holistic approach to prioritization.
This plan was developed through the partnership of many county staff and local jurisdictions. The work
is a result of their commitment and input throughout the planning process.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
10
Introduction
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan promotes programs and projects that partner with
communities to build a foundation of resilience before, during, and after disasters. This plan update
reassesses risks and vulnerabilities to eight natural and seven human-caused hazards and develops
strategies to reduce risk from those hazards. In addition to a base plan covering King County as a whole,
each participating jurisdiction developed an annex that independently meets most FEMA planning
requirements. Each annex, plus this base plan, meets the planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR
201.6. In addition to King County, over 60 cities and special purpose districts developed plan annexes.
Mitigation Plan Priorities:
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee (Steering Committee) set the
following priorities for the 2018 plan update process.
Break down planning
silos and establish new
partnerships
Collaborate with jurisdictions to build integrated hazard mitigation strategies,
including around risk management, floodplain management, comprehensive
planning, equity and social justice, and climate change.
Provide more education
and training to partners
to prepare for FEMA
DRRA grants in 2020
In preparation for a tripling of federal grants for natural hazard mitigation
through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, beginning in 2020, work with
planning partners and county agencies to identify projects and project
champions. Build capacity among planning partners to identify vulnerability,
craft a mitigation strategy, communicate project benefits, and successfully
pursue hazard mitigation grant funding.
Conduct a robust public
outreach process
involving all planning
partners.
Implement a proactive outreach strategy focused hazard mitigation success
stories and hands-on demonstrations of effective mitigation projects, working
with the media to follow-up on stories highlighting Washington’s need for
more hazard preparedness and resilience.
Develop quality hazard
mitigation strategies and a
method to prioritize and
track them.
Work with planning partners to craft comprehensive hazard mitigation
strategies that are measurable, actionable, trackable, and identify specific
funding sources. Prioritize strategies in accordance with opportunity to
reduce risk and further county priorities.
Integrate equity and
social justice into our
understanding of risk and
vulnerability.
Work with King County departments to identify an appropriate way to
address population vulnerability. Include this information in the plan in a way
that is operationally meaningful and can support mitigation strategies that will
reduce risk to these populations.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
11
Integrate mitigation
planning and climate
preparedness
Fully integrate with the update process for the Strategic Climate Action Plan.
Integration includes participation in workgroups and shared strategies that
increase climate and hazard resilience.
Timeline
February-May 2019:
Begin planning process
Meet with each of the 60+ jurisdictions participating in this plan update.
Convene the steering committee. Draft plan format and begin GIS analysis.
Begin outreach strategy. Develop first drafts of the risk assessment.
June-September: Conduct
public outreach
Work with partners on community outreach; conduct media outreach;
conduct mitigation strategy development workshops with planning partners.
October-December Review the plan and submit to FEMA.
January-April, 2020 Complete revisions and adopt the plan prior to expiration on April 30, 2020.
Revisions from 2015 Edition
The 2020 plan was fully rewritten and reformatted to reflect updated priorities and a greater emphasis on
hazard mitigation strategies. The most substantive change is to those strategies, which are formatted in
an action-plan style, consistent with the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. With the
change to mitigation strategies, the method of reporting has also been updated.
The risk assessments in this edition have been shortened and refocused to better support the intended
audience - emergency managers who are called upon to plan for and respond to these hazards. The
information is largely taken from the 2016 Hazard Inventory and Risk Assessment and the 2018 FEMA
RiskMAP Risk Report.
The capabilities assessment in this edition has been modified to focus on the relationship between
programs, plans, and policies that could support mitigation and the hazard mitigation plan and program.
This change will help the plan better reflect how each capability supports mitigation instead of just listing
potential capabilities. A similar process was used to document potential sources of funding.
This plan is written to meet or exceed the relevant elements of the Emergency Management Standard
(ANSI standard) by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP).
The number of participating jurisdictions increased from the 2015 update. In 2015, 53 jurisdictions
participated in the plan. For this update, over 60 jurisdictions participated in the planning process and at
least 50 are expected to submit complete annexes for FEMA approval.
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapters
The base plan satisfies all requirements for King County plus many of the planning requirements for
local planning partners. The plan is organized as follows.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
12
Planning Process: The planning process section corresponds roughly to Element A in the FEMA
Mitigation Plan Review Guide and includes information on the planning process, including public
outreach, meetings, and the planning timeline.
Capabilities Assessment and King County Hazard Mitigation Program: The capabilities chapter meets
requirements associated with coordinating the hazard mitigation program with other entities as well as
information on available funding.
Risk Assessment: The risk assessment chapters include profiles of each profiled natural and human-
caused hazard. These profiles are brief and are designed to provide an overview to emergency managers
and other users of this plan. This section meets the requirements of Element B in the FEMA Mitigation
Plan Review Guide.
Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Hazard mitigation strategies are the key deliverable of this plan and include
information on how strategies are identified, developed, and prioritized. This section meets most of the
requirements in Element C of the FEMA Mitigation Plan Review Guide.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
13
Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
King County’s 2019 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) was developed with input of a multi-
agency, multi-jurisdictional steering committee. The Steering Committee supervised the writing of the
plan and was consulted for final decisions made by the King County Emergency Management Planning
Team. The process was led by King County Emergency Management, which facilitated both the internal
county process and supported individual city planning efforts. Individual departments developed their
own strategies internally and then socialized the strategies with the other county participants.
Steering Committee Members
Name Email Organization Focus Area
Lara Whitely-
Binder lwbinder@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Climate Preparedness
Specialist
Mitch Paine mpaine@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Floodplain
Management
Program Manager
Cecelia Hayes Cecelia.Hayes@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Executive Services
Equity and Social
Justice Program
Manager
Karen Wolf karen.wolf@kingcounty.gov
King County
Executive Office
Comprehensive/Land
Use Planning Policy
Analyst
Cynthia
Hernandez cynthia.hernandez@kingcounty.gov
King County
Department of
Natural Resources
and Parks
Emergency
Management
Program Manager
Sean Catanese sean.catanese@kingcounty.gov
King County Risk
Management Risk Management
Andrew Stevens astevens@sammamish.us
City of
Sammamish Emergency Manager
Ellen Montanana emontanana@bellevuewa.gov City of Bellevue Emergency Manager
Jennifer Franklin jennifer.franklin@mercergov.org
City of Mercer
Island Emergency Manager
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
14
Janet Sailer janet.sailer@spwsd.org
Sammamish
Plateau Water
District Emergency Manager
Steve Moye smoye@ccud.org
Coal Creek Utility
District Manager
Janice Rahman janice.rahman@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
Recovery Program
Manager
Mike Ryan mryan@bellevuewa.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
N/E Zone
Coordinator
Sarah Miller sarah.miller@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management S Zone Coordinator
Jeffrey Linn jlinn@kingcounty.gov King County GIS GIS
Derrick Hiebert dhiebert@kingcounty.gov
King County
Emergency
Management
Planning Process
Facilitator, Plan
Author
The team met monthly to review progress and make key decisions about the direction of the planning
effort. These meetings were hosted by King County Emergency Management.
Steering Committee Meeting Topics
Month Topic
February 2019
Outline proposed planning process and timeline and approve plan and plan
annex templates.
March Identify public outreach sites and strategy
April Integrating equity and social justice into the mitigation plan.
May Integrating equity and social justice into the mitigation plan.
June Establish plan goals, priorities, and strategy prioritization method
July Workshop 2 – hazard mitigation strategies.
August Review capabilities assessment
September Review risk assessment
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
15
October Long-term mitigation plan monitoring and implementation strategy
November Review draft base plan and King County hazard mitigation strategies
January 2020 Submit plan to FEMA
March 2020 Incorporate FEMA revisions
April 2020 Receive notice of Approval, Pending Adoption from FEMA
June 2020 Plan adoption and final approval
In addition to the multi-jurisdictional steering committee, the King County Emergency Management
Coordinating Committee (EMCC) contributed to the plan update as the steering committee for the King
County-specific hazard mitigation strategies. This committee consists of every King County department
as well as representatives from the King County Executive’s Office and the King County Council. A list
of all EMCC members is available in the Capabilities chapter. The EMCC meets monthly.
Individual jurisdiction annexes were developed in partnership with King County, but with separate
internal steering committees. The members of each jurisdiction’s steering committee are documented in
each annex.
Mitigation Planning Partner Engagement
The King County portion of this plan focuses on unincorporated areas of the county. These areas
border, or are served by, cities, tribes, and special purpose districts, all of whom were invited to
participate in this plan update. For the purpose of interjurisdictional coordination, King County defined
‘neighboring jurisdictions’ as these partners since they are the entities most critical to effective
implementation of multi-jurisdictional mitigation projects and since many city residents receive county
services and visa-versa. In addition to coordination with these jurisdictions, King County maintains a
high level of engagement with neighboring counties, especially Pierce and Snohomish. The planning
team invited counterparts in Pierce and Snohomish to attend each of the planning workshops described
below. There are also multiple other concurrent planning efforts involving these counties, including the
Close Coordinated Terrorist Attack (CCTA) program and the Regional Catastrophic Planning (RCPG)
effort.
The planning process kicked off in November 2018 with a meeting and workshop to which all planning
partners were invited. At this workshop, participants learned about the process, expectations, and were
asked to provide commitment letters with billing rates to meet federal grant match requirements.
To support the more-than-60 planning partners, the planning team met individually or in small groups
with each jurisdiction to discuss the planning process and go over the planning requirements. These
meetings took place between February and May.
To supplement these meetings, King County hosted a webinar and two in-person planning workshops in
June 2019 (June 3, 10, and 27). During these workshops, the planning team presented updated
information on public outreach, plan integration, risk assessments, and strategy prioritization.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
16
In addition to planning assistance workshops, King County partnered with FEMA RiskMAP and
Washington State to offer three workshops on the identification of threats and hazards, the development
of mitigation strategies, and the process to successfully fund those strategies. The workshops were held
on December 13, 2018, July 25, 2019, and August 22, 2019. Approximately 70 attendees were recorded
at each. Invitees included representatives from all King County departments, all cities, most special
purpose districts, and other agencies and organizations such as the Port of Seattle and the Northwest
Healthcare Response Network.
Following the submission of the base plan in December 2019, King County will begin a second stage of
outreach targeting those jurisdictions who missed the original submission deadline and those who were
not previously involved. Among the second group, school districts will be proactively engaged and
offered assistance in developing annexes to the hazard mitigation plan.
Sign-in sheets for all outreach events are available upon request.
Jurisdiction Plan Annex Process
Jurisdictions may join the regional hazard mitigation plan at any time by submitting a letter of intent to
King County Emergency Management and completing the planning process and plan template. Each
plan can be unique, and jurisdictions may do more than what is required in the template; however, this
template is designed to help walk communities through the planning process in an accessible way.
Further details on how to conduct the process are available in the King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan. King County staff will provide technical assistance to planning partners, whenever
possible.
Review and Incorporation of Reports and Studies
In addition to the data sources outlined in the Risk Assessment section of this plan, the planning team
leveraged a number of existing and ongoing planning processes and other documents. More information
can be found in the Program Capabilities chapter of this plan.
• The Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) is a plan designed to assess the impacts of climate
change on King County and develop strategies to both reduce risk from climate impacts and
reduce King County’s contribution to climate change. The planning team for the RHMP
included the lead for the SCAP and participated in the SCAP.
• The State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan was used for data on hazards and for identifying
capabilities. Another contribution from that plan is the hazard mitigation strategy format, which
was copied and modified for use in the King County plan.
• The Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan was integral to establishing the hazard mitigation
plan goals and the process by which mitigation projects are prioritized.
• Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2050 lays out planning policies and guidelines for the
King-Pierce-Kitsap-Snohomish county area and is undergoing an update in 2019 and 2020. The
mitigation planning team reviewed and contributed to the planning process for Vision 2050.
• The King County Floodplain Management Plan is being updated and data from that planning
effort is included in sections of this plan referring to the NFIP, flood risk, and flood mitigation
strategies.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
17
• The Washington, DC Hazard Mitigation Plan (draft) was a source for inspiration for the
method of prioritizing mitigation strategies and conducting the risk assessment for vulnerable
populations.
• The 2018-2019 FEMA RiskMAP Risk Report for King County was reviewed for data and
mapping purposes as well as for information on historic disasters and potential mitigation
strategies.
• The 2019 King County Dam Inventory from the Washington State Department of Ecology and
guidance from the King County Dam Safety Program.
• The Clean Water and Health Habitat Initiative, uniting departments involved in health and
environmental resilience, was convened by the King County Executive and includes the hazard
mitigation program.
• The draft Regional Resiliency Assessment Program report for transportation for Western
Washington.
King County Plan Update Timeline
The following is a timeline of significant events and milestones for King County in the Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update.
Plan Update Timeline
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Plan Kickoff 11/28/18 Conducted a kickoff meeting for
the planning process, including
discussions of expectations and
the project timeline.
Designated county, city,
and special district staff
who are leading local
plan updates
Risk Assessment
Workshop
12/13/18
First workshop with FEMA
RiskMAP staff to socialize hazard
data and develop problem
statements.
Approximately 80
attendees including GIS
staff, county
departments, city
emergency managers,
and other program
managers with interest
in mitigation
Steering Committee
Meeting Kickoff
2/19/19 Outline proposed planning
process and timeline and approve
plan and plan annex templates.
Steering committee
Outreach Strategy
Meeting
2/22/19
Meet with staff to identify
outreach strategy
OEM Director,
Outreach Team,
Coordination Team
Steering Committee
Meeting
3/12/19 Identify public outreach sites and
strategy
Steering committee
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
18
Steering Committee
Meeting
4/30/19 Integrating equity and social
justice into the mitigation plan.
Steering committee
EMCC Meeting 5/1/19 Discuss planning process, DRRA
funding, and mitigation strategies
County departments
Steering Committee
Meeting
5/14/19 Integrating equity and social
justice into the mitigation plan.
Steering committee
Mitigation Technical
Webinar
6/3/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
EMCC Meeting 6/5/19 Mitigation strategy meeting
discussions and identify points of
contact in each agency
County departments
Mitigation Technical
Workshop
6/10/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
Steering Committee
Meeting
6/11/19 Establish plan goals, priorities, and
strategy prioritization method
Steering committee
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
6/18/19 Comments received included
concerns about mitigation of solid
waste facilities, whether or not
earthquake insurance makes sense,
and need for snow mitigation
following February snowstorm.
Residents from central
King County and the
Issaquah/Hobart/Maple
Valley areas.
Approximately 100
attendees.
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
6/25/19 Discussed concerns about impacts
to Enumclaw area from a
lahar/Mt. Rainier
Residents from
southeast King County,
predominately from
Enumclaw and nearby
unincorporated areas.
Approximately 100
attendees.
Mitigation Technical
Workshop
6/27/19 Reviewed planning process and
helped local partners on mitigation
planning questions
local jurisdiction
partners
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/9/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
DES, FMD and KC
International Airport
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
19
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/11/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
DNRP
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/11/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
Local Services (Roads)
Mitigation Strategy
Meetings
7/15/19 Met with internal planning
partners (county departments) to
develop mitigation strategies.
Local Services
(Permitting)
Hazard Mitigation
Workshop
7/25/19 Worked through the entire
strategy development process
from risk identification to
mitigation projects.
County and local
partners, approximately
75 attendees
Steering Committee
Meeting
8/20/19
Review mitigation capabilities
Steering committee
Mitigation Funding
Workshop
8/22/19 Worked through process of
developing a successful hazard
mitigation grant application
County and local
partners. Approximately
60 attendees.
Clean Water Healthy
Habitat Initiative
Workshop
9/4/19 Participated in a process to
coordinate mitigation planning
efforts with other environmental
quality, climate change, and hazard
reduction programs in the county.
60-100 attendees from
multiple county
departments, especially
DNRP.
Steering Committee
Meeting
9/16/19 Review risk and vulnerability
assessments
Steering committee
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
9/10/19 Residents looked at the hazard
information and discussed
strategies for protecting their
community from an earthquake. A
major concern is the likelihood
that the area will be isolated by an
earthquake due to liquefaction.
Dozens of residents
from the areas of White
Center, Highline,
Skyway, and Burien.
Critical Transportation
Workgroup
9/17/19
Discussed the establishment and
mitigation of lifeline
transportation routes for a post-
Cascadia scenario.
County departments,
local jurisdictions, and
state agencies
participated in the
workshop.
Steering Committee
Meeting
10/8/19 Review base plan and King
County mitigation strategies
Steering committee
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
20
CSA Town Hall
Outreach Event
10/17/19
Discussed flooding in the
Snoqualmie-Carnation-Duvall
areas.
Residents from the
northeastern portion of
the county, especially in
Snoqualmie, Carnation,
and Duvall
County Departments
Strategy Coordination
11/14/19 Meet with King County
departments to go over all the
mitigation strategies, eliminate
gaps, and ensure consistent
priorities.
County departments,
including OEM, FMD,
DNRP, PHSKC, KCIT,
DES.
Steering Committee
Meeting
11/12/19
Review draft base plan
Steering committee
Submit to WA EMD
and FEMA
12/15/19 Submit full mitigation plan to
FEMA for review
Planning Team
Support for Community Rating System (CRS) Communities
The hazard mitigation plan update process was also closely linked to the update for King County’s Flood
Hazard Management Plan. To receive credit, participating jurisdictions must follow the CRS process
outlined in the current version of the CRS Coordinators Manual, element 510. At a minimum,
jurisdictions wanting to receive CRS planning credit must have at least two participants in one of the
planning teams.
As such, a separate, parallel process was led by the King County River and Floodplain Management
Section. This process was integrated into the planning effort for the overall hazard mitigation plan. Three
meetings were held in addition to the regular mitigation planning meetings. The flood portion steering
committee consisted of the following members:
Committee Member Organization Key Role
Gwyn Berry City of Snoqualmie Floodplain Manager/Planner
Bob Freitag UW Institute for Hazard
Mitigation Planning & Research
Director
Elissa Ostergaard Snoqualmie Watershed Forum Salmon Recovery Manager
Scott Smith King County Permitting Division Senior Engineer
Monica Walker King County River & Floodplain
Management Section
Program Manager, White-Cedar-
Sammamish Basin
Ken Zweig King County River & Floodplain
Management Section
Program Manager, Countywide
Policy and Planning Unit
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
21
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Planning Meeting 1 10/10/19
Discussed the flood hazard
assessment.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Planning Meeting 2 10/30/19
Developed flood hazard mitigation
strategies.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Planning Meeting 3 11/6/19
Prioritize hazard mitigation
strategies and review draft risk
assessment.
Representatives from
cities, county
departments, academia,
and the public.
Public Outreach Process
Public outreach during the plan update process is considered to be a critical part of hazard mitigation
planning. For this update, participating jurisdictions are asked to conduct two outreach events. One of
these events should be a meeting-style event and the other could be any event desired by the jurisdiction,
including workshops, fairs, neighborhood meetings, etc. Jurisdictions were encouraged to make the
meetings valuable to the community. Holding a separate, stand-alone meeting for the sole purpose of
this plan update was NOT required, especially if using an existing event, like a commissioner’s meeting,
could help expand public engagement and engage elected officials simultaneously. Jurisdictions were also
encouraged to partner with neighbors or special purpose districts serving their area for more effective
public outreach events.
To count as outreach for the hazard mitigation plan, meetings had to meet the following requirements.
1. Be advertised to the general public. You do NOT have to publish an ad in the paper. You can
use your newsletters, social media, press releases, and other mechanisms to conduct outreach.
2. Promote two-way communication between the public and the planning team.
3. Focus on hazard mitigation, resilience, risk-reduction, etc., for some significant part of the
event. The focus does not have to be solely on mitigation, and you do not have to refer to the
event as related to “mitigation planning;” however, the concepts of resilience, risk-reduction,
etc., should be discussed.
4. Be documented. This is very important. Please summarize both who attends and what they
contribute and make sure to include it in the plan.
County public outreach partnered with the Department of Local Services and other local jurisdictions to
ensure that events occurred throughout unincorporated areas as well as in incorporated areas served by
some county services. The unincorporated area events were part of Community Service Area (CSA)
Town Halls. These events are well-attended and well-advertised, with 60-100 attendees per meeting. This
outreach model, partnering with existing meetings and services, is designed to help put emergency
management and hazard mitigation in context. The work done in hazard mitigation is almost exclusively
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
22
carried out by non-emergency management entities. By partnering with other departments and using
outreach mechanisms where they would all be present, it may be possible to help demonstrate the role of
emergency management in the community and the partnerships that good hazard mitigation requires.
The following is an excerpt from the King County Department of Local Services newsletter that goes
out to nearly 8000 residents.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
23
King County Public Meetings
Date Location Summary Attendees
6/18/19
Greater Maple
Valley CSA
Comments received included
concerns about mitigation of solid
waste facilities, whether or not
earthquake insurance makes sense,
and need for snow mitigation
following February snowstorm.
Residents from central King
County and the
Issaquah/Hobart/Maple Valley
areas. Approximately 100
attendees.
6/25/19
Enumclaw/
Southeast King
County CSA
Discussed concerns about impacts
to Enumclaw area from a
lahar/Mt. Rainier
Residents from southeast King
County, predominately from
Enumclaw and nearby
unincorporated areas.
Approximately 100 attendees.
9/12/19
White Center
CSA
Residents looked at the hazard
information and discussed
strategies for protecting their
community from an earthquake. A
major concern is the likelihood
that the area will be isolated by an
earthquake due to liquefaction.
Dozens of residents from the
areas of White Center, Highline,
Skyway, and Burien.
10/17/19
Snoqualmie/
Carnation/
Duvall CSA
Discussed flooding in the
Snoqualmie-Carnation-Duvall
areas.
Residents from the northeastern
portion of the county, especially
in Snoqualmie, Carnation, and
Duvall
The Des Moines Farmers Market public outreach event hosted by the City of Des
Moines and including King County Emergency Management and Valley regional Fire
Authority.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
24
The following is a questionnaire
handed out at these events. Major
topics of discussion, and any
comments or feedback on the
plan and planning process, are
included in the summary table for
the public meetings.
King County Emergency
Management also joined several
locally-led events. For this, the
planning team developed a table-
sized 3D-printed topographic map
of the county with an aerial image
printed on it. The interactive, 3D
physical map was used to talk
about the county’s history of
hazards, flooding, climate change,
landslides, lahar zones,
liquefaction areas, and more.
The model was available for use
by local jurisdictions both with
and without county staff so that it
could be used to support a wider range of outreach activities.
Finally, in addition to in-person outreach, King County Emergency Management developed a website,
https://www.kingcounty.gov/hazardplan. The website explains the purpose of mitigation and provides
an overview of key hazards and examples of effective hazard mitigation. This website will be kept up for
at least the duration of the plan review.
Joint Public Meetings
Date Location Summary Attendees
7/16/19
City of
Medina
Presented to the City of Medina Emergency
Management Committee and other local
residents and led a discussion afterward. The
primary interest was on how residents could
contribute to mitigation and resilience goals
for their city. Residents in Medina will serve
as the steering committee for the mitigation
plan update and will help identify and
prioritize mitigation strategies based on at-
risk, high-priority community assets.
Community members,
elected officials, and
members of Medina
EMC. Approximately 20
people attended.
7/24/19
City of North
Bend
World Café workshop at the North Bend
Public Library
No attendees were
recorded at this event.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
25
8/21/19
City of
Kenmore
Presentation and hazard mitigation booth
with 3D map at a Kenmore Town Square
movie night. Spoke with approximately 25
people. The main focus of questions were
around which areas of the community were at
higher risk. Also collected feedback from
community members on their ranking of
Kenmore’s mitigation strategies.
Lots of children plus
community members
attended. Over 100
attendees estimated.
8/27/19
Cities of
Tukwila, Kent,
Covington
and SeaTac
Presented on county hazard mitigation efforts
and discussed countywide risks at a joint
public meeting at Fire Station 74 in Kent.
Major comments included questions about
how cities and the county are prioritizing
mitigation investments, comments on the risk
of fire from homes built very close together,
and questions about the restoration of water
in areas with unstable soils.
10-12 attendees, mostly
from Kent, spoke with
staff from their cities
and King County
Emergency
Management
City of Des
Moines
Hosted a booth at Des Moines Farmers
Market. Discussed the possibility of Des
Moines becoming an island after a major
earthquake. Discussed the vulnerability of the
waterfront relative to the lower-vulnerability
of the rest of the city. The City of Des
Moines and Valley Regional Fire Authority
were also present and completed surveys for
their mitigation plan annexes.
The booth was occupied
continuously by
residents from 10AM
until 2PM.
9/28/19
Cities of
Maple Valley,
Covington,
and Black
Diamond
Annual preparedness fair 3D map booth and
presentation. Spoke with dozens of residents
and several elected officials and shared
information on hazard risk and ways to
address hazard risk. Major comments were
related to length of time needed to reach
residents in far-flung areas following an
earthquake, especially given the response
times during the February 2019 winter
storms.
Hundreds of residents
from the area and cities
around Maple Valley.
Dozens stopped by the
booth.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
26
Residents examining the 3D hazard map at a North City Water public outreach event (Source: Diane Pottinger, North
City Water)
Continued Public Participation
King County and its partner cities already maintains substantial public outreach capabilities, focusing on
personal preparedness and education. Information on ongoing progress in implementing the hazard
mitigation plan will be integrated into public outreach efforts. The Community Service Area Town Hall
events led by the Department of Local Services are scheduled annually and provide a unique opportunity
to highlight mitigation successes. This will provide King County residents, already engaged in personal
preparedness efforts, with context and the opportunity to provide feedback on the county’s progress and
priorities in large-scale mitigation. In the vertical integration of risk-reduction activities from personal to
local to state and federal, it is important that the public understand how its activities support, and are
supported by, larger-scale efforts.
The outreach and mitigation teams will also continue to work with media and other agency partners to
publicize mitigation success stories and help explain how vulnerabilities are being fixed. When possible,
public tours of successfully-completed mitigation projects will be organized to allow community
members to see successful mitigation in action.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
27
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation
Program Capabilities
King County includes 39 cities, over 129 special purpose
districts, and large unincorporated areas. While each city and
special purpose district is responsible for its own hazard
mitigation efforts, King County supports these jurisdictions
through region-wide services and planning coordination,
including efforts associated with land use, emergency
management, and floodplain management. County
departments involved in hazard mitigation efforts include
Executive Services (facilities management, emergency
management), local services (permitting, roads), Natural
Resources and Parks (wastewater, landslides, floodplain
management, climate change), and the Office of the
Executive (planning).
As the lead agency for hazard mitigation, King County
Emergency Management (KC EM) engages partners to
promote and/or support mitigation activities. KC EM also
publicizes Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant opportunities
and provides technical support to develop applications and
administer awards. KC EM also serves on interagency
workgroups such as comprehensive planning, climate
adaptation, and transportation as a way of promoting
consistency in risk assessment and reduction priorities.
The focus of King County Emergency Management’s
hazard mitigation program is integration, including plan
integration, program integration, and
departmental/jurisdictional integration. Plan integration
helps ensure partners use the best available data and that
plan outcomes are supportive of a resilient future. Program
integration helps partners find fund sources and support
outside of their departments or programs. Department and
jurisdiction integration builds on the role the county EOC serves for response, engaging resources to
promote and implement the most effective, highest-priority hazard mitigation opportunities. In a large
county with dozens of partners, a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach is less effective at building
resilience. KC EM’s approach is to unify partners behind the vision of resilience laid out in this plan.
Plan Integration
When plans and planning processes are more integrated, it is possible to achieve greater impact through
clearer definition, smarter investment, partnerships, and innovation. Successful integration requires
Hazard Mitigation Program
Hazard mitigation is most effective
when implemented through a
systematic program that establishes
priorities and understands that
resilience requires system-wide
investments in mitigation.
Cohesive, comprehensive strategies
and the establishment of
partnerships are the core elements
of a program. Individual projects
matter, but are made more effective
by systematic, strategic
implementation.
In order to support this program,
King County Emergency
Management convenes multi-
agency committees, offers technical
assistance on federal mitigation
grants, supports partners in
planning and mitigation projects,
and maintains and updates the
King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
28
coordination between planning efforts and, especially, cross-participation in planning processes. The
goals of plan integration are to:
• Ensure consistency with jurisdiction priorities across all planning processes
• Leverage opportunities to further multi-benefit initiatives that are supported by multiple
planning processes
• Achieve common measures of success for outcomes
The hazard mitigation plan can benefit from integration with planning processes that:
• Prioritize and invest in infrastructure
• Regulate development
• Set strategic direction for programs
To other planning processes, the hazard mitigation plan brings risk and vulnerability information to help
prioritize projects and set development standards or regulations. The mitigation plan also comes with
potential funding for investments in cost-effective risk-reduction projects. On the other hand, the
mitigation plan depends on other plans and processes to implement many strategies. Since the mitigation
plan is not itself a regulatory or budgetary document, strategies identified in the mitigation plan are often
best implemented through those processes or programs.
There are many plans and planning processes within King County that impact hazard risk. These include
strategic plans, long-range plans, resource plans, and capital plans.
TITLE DESCRIPTION LEAD INTEGRATION
STRATEGY
Capital Facilities
Plans
Capital facilities plans identify and
prioritize large-scale projects.
Entities involved in this include the
King County Facilities Management
Division and the King County
Flood Control District.
Various • Integrate mitigation
strategies from
capital plans
• Encourage the use
of hazard
information to
prioritize capital
improvements
• Support county
departments with
funding gaps in
accessing Hazard
Mitigation
Assistance to
complete or expand
projects that are
identified as
important but are
unfunded or
partially funded.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
29
Clean Water and
Health Habitat
Strategic Plan
The CWHH Strategic Plan seeks to
establish a strategic alignment
across all plans that impact clean
water and healthy habitat in order
to achieve “greater impact through
clearer definition, smarter
investment, partnerships, and
innovation.” This process is just
starting, and it includes over 20
separate plans and programs.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Participate in plan
development.
• Align outcome
measures and
program
prioritization
methods
• Work through this
process to help
align mitigation
planning with other
planning in the
natural resource
sector, such as
forest health, solid
waste, and salmon
recovery.
Comprehensive
Plan
The King County Comprehensive
Plan is the long-range guiding
policy document for all land use
and development regulations in
unincorporated King County, and
for regional services throughout the
County including transit, sewers,
parks, trails and open space.
Executive’s
Office
• Encourage updates
to the critical areas
ordinance
• Provide feedback
and comments on
the plan
Comprehensive
Emergency
Management Plan
(CEMP)
The CEMP is for use by elected
and appointed County officials, and
King County government
department directors, managers and
staff in mitigating, preparing for,
responding to, and recovering from
disasters.
This plan is a product of
coordinated planning efforts
between King County Emergency
Management, County departments,
emergency management
representatives from various
political jurisdictions, and selected
private and nonprofit sector
interests. It meets the requirements
of WAC 118-30 and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) planning guidance for the
National Response Framework and
Emergency
Management
• The Hazard
Mitigation Plan
provides the risk
profiles that
support the
development of the
CEMP.
• The Hazard
Mitigation Plan is
also a component
(the mitigation
component) of the
CEMP.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
30
the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) compliance.
Equity and Social
Justice Strategic
Plan
The Equity and Social Justice
Strategic Plan is a blueprint for
action and change that will guide
the county’s pro-equity policy
direction, decision-making,
planning, operations and services,
and workplace practices in order to
advance equity and social justice
within County government and in
partnership with communities.
Executive’s
Office
• Follow guidance in
the ESJ plan for the
prioritization of
strategies
• Develop
information on
populations
vulnerable to
hazards and share
with ESJ planning
teams
Flood Hazard
Management Plan
The current (2013) King County
Flood Hazard Management Plan is
a functional annex of the
comprehensive plan. It outlines the
County’s approach to
comprehensive floodplain
management including land use
planning, flood mitigation efforts,
and flood protection facilities
management.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Work with
department
responsible for
floodplain
management to
write the flood risk
assessment.
• Work with local
CRS coordinators
to ensure the
mitigation plan is
worth the
maximum number
of points.
Strategic Climate
Action Plan
King County’s Strategic Climate
Action Plan (SCAP) is a five-year
blueprint for County action to
confront climate change,
integrating climate change into all
areas of County operations and its
work in the community. The SCAP
is King County’s blueprint for
climate action and provides a “one-
stop-shop” for county decision-
makers, employees, and the general
public to learn about the County’s
climate change goals, priorities and
commitments.
Department of
Natural
Resources and
Parks
• Inter-workgroup
participation
• Integrated
mitigation strategies
• Consistent risk
assessments
Strategic Plan for
Road Services
The Road Services Strategic Plan
lays out system needs and
anticipated service levels and an
asset management approach to
road maintenance and
improvement.
Department of
Local Services
• Integrate mitigation
strategies
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
31
Program and Policy Capabilities
With over 15,000 employees and dozens of departments and offices, King County has a tremendous
capability to implement mitigation projects. Mitigation efforts are underway throughout the county,
including such organizations as the Rivers and Floodplain Management Section of DNRP and the
Wastewater Treatment Division of DNRP.
The hazard mitigation planning process has engaged participants from across these program and policy
areas in order to establish a common assessment of hazards, identify potential mitigation strategies,
partnerships for future projects, and to assess county capabilities to implement mitigation projects. The
list below identifies King County policies and programs that support and implement hazard mitigation
and assesses the effectiveness of each. For state-level policies and programs that support hazard
mitigation, such as the Growth Management Act, please see the Washington State Enhanced Hazard
Mitigation Plan.2
The following table identifies the programs and organizations contributing regularly to hazard mitigation.
PROGRAM/POLICY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES LEAD
Building and
Development
Codes
Building and development codes are adopted and modified
from the 2015 IBC by Washington State Building Code
Council and King County. These codes help ensure that
new construction and substantial improvements meet
international standards, accounting for our hazard risk.
Department of
Local Services,
Permitting
Building and
Development Code
Enforcement
The Department of Local Services, Permitting Division is
the agency that provides land use, building and fire
regulatory and operating permits, code enforcement and a
limited number of business licenses for unincorporated
areas of King County. Other local jurisdictions provide
similar services within incorporated areas. The Code
Enforcement Section investigates complaints regarding
violations of King County Codes (KCC) related to zoning,
building, property maintenance, shorelines and critical areas
in unincorporated King County.
Department of
Local Services,
Permitting
Community Rating
System
The CRS program rewards communities that have
established exceptional floodplain management programs
and undertaken certain activities to reduce flood risk. King
County is one of the highest rated communities in the
country. The program provides NFIP policyholders in
floodplains with a discount of up to 40% on their
insurance.
DNRP
DLS
KCEM
2 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2018. “Potential Sources of Funding and Mitigation Capability.”
Accessed online on 7/12/19 from https://mil.wa.gov/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
32
Critical Areas
Ordinance
The critical areas ordinance requires the identification of
geologically-hazardous and frequently-flooded areas. These
areas must either be protected from development or any
development in these areas must be designed to account
for hazard risk.
Department of
Local Services
Equity and Social
Justice
King County has deep and persistent inequities – especially
by race and place–that in many cases are getting worse and
threaten our collective prosperity. Launched by King
County Executive Ron Sims in 2008 and formalized by
Executive Dow Constantine and the Metropolitan King
County Council via ordinance in 2010, Equity and Social
Justice (ESJ) is an integrated part of the County’s work and
is supported by the Office of Equity and Social Justice
since it was established in early 2015.
King County
Executive’s
Office, Office of
Equity and Social
Justice
Facilities
Management
Division
The Facilities Management Division (FMD) oversees and
maintains King County's real estate assets. The Major
Projects and Capital Planning section is tasked with
efficiently and effectively delivering large-scale projects in
alignment with the policy directives of King County
government, the facility needs of employees and the public,
and for overall service to the community. Part of this
includes the development of hazard-resilient facilities.
Department of
Executive
Services, FMD
GIS King County GIS provides analysis support, mapping, and
other data to all King County departments. This data is
valuable for hazard mitigation planning activities.
KCIT
Hazard Mitigation The hazard mitigation program works with partners across
county departments and local jurisdictions to coordinate
and promote hazard mitigation projects.
The program also coordinates applications to federal
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs and conducts
hazard mitigation planning for the county in partnership
with local jurisdictions and special-purpose districts.
KC Emergency
Management
King County
Conservation
District
The King County Conservation District is an independent
special purpose district with separately-elected
commissioners. It promotes water, land, soil, and forest
conservation and preservation and conducts wildfire risk
reduction activities.
King County
Conservation
District
King County IT KCIT leads the county’s response to, and preparedness for,
cyber incidents. KCIT has helped local cities recover from
ransomware and other attacks.
King County
Information
Technology
(KCIT)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
33
King County Flood
Control District
In 2007, the King County Flood Control District was
established to provide a proactive, regional approach to
flooding as well as funding to improve the county's nearly
500 aging and inadequate flood protection facilities.
Funding for the Flood Control District comes from a
county-wide property levy of 12.9 cents per $1,000 assessed
value. This amounts to $54 per year on a $416,000 home.
The levy raises roughly $54.5 million a year. This funding
dramatically increases the number of projects that can be
completed each year. The additional local funding also
enhances the District's ability to receive federal and state
matching funds.
The King County Flood Control District is a separate
special purpose district.
King County
Flood Control
District
Landslide Hazards The Landslide Hazards program conducts mapping and
outreach associated with landslide risk.
DNRP Water
and Land
Resources
Division
Land Use Planning
and Zoning
Land use planning and zoning establishes growth and land
use patterns that are consistent with long-range plans and
supported by infrastructure.
King County
Executive’s
Office
National Flood
Insurance Program
Communities that participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program adopt a floodplain management code in
exchange for FEMA making flood insurance available to
residents and businesses.
DNRP, DLS –
Permitting
Division
Office of Risk
Management
Services
Risk Management investigates and resolves claims against
King County in a fair and expeditious manner, and also
provides internal services to King County agencies,
including:
• Insurance: King County administers a self-insurance
program and purchases a variety of other insurance
policies and related services consistent with good risk
management practices and the needs of the County.
• Contracts: Risk Management advises King County
agencies on insurance requirements, indemnification,
release, and hold harmless provisions in all types of
contracts. Risk Management actively negotiates these
provisions and, together with the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office, assists agencies in pursuing and
tendering claims arising out of contractual relations.
• Recovery Services: The recovery section of Risk
Management is charged with seeking compensation for
Department of
Executive
Services
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
34
damages caused to King County property or injury to
King County employees by negligent third parties.
• Loss Control Program: The Loss Control Manager
works with King County agencies to identify areas of
potential loss and recommend strategies to reduce
exposure to liability. The Loss Control Program also
administers continuing workplace training and
education for King County employees.
Part of this work includes the development and
maintenance of a risk register of events and information on
how those events can impact King County.
Public Health Public Health — Seattle & King County (Public Health)
works to protect and improve the health and well-being of
all people in King County as measured by increasing the
number of healthy years that people live and eliminating
health disparities.
Public Health is the one of the largest metropolitan health
departments in the United States with 1,400 employees, 40
sites, and a biennial budget of $686 million. The
department serves a resident population of nearly 2.2
million people in an environment of great complexity and
scale, with 19 acute care hospitals and over 7,000 medical
professionals. Over 100 languages are spoken here, and
King County is an international destination welcoming
nearly 40 million visitors annually.
Public Health protects the public from threats to their
health, promotes better health, and helps to assure that
people are provided with accessible, quality health care.
Health protection functions include disease control, such as
tuberculosis, HIV, communicable disease epidemiology and
immunizations, and ensuring that the air is safe to breathe,
and water and food are safe to consume.
Health promotion functions include preventing behaviors
that lead to disease, averting injuries and managing chronic
health conditions.
Health provision functions include convening and leading
system-wide efforts to improve access and quality,
advocating for access to quality health care for all, forming
partnerships with service providers and directly providing
individual health services when there is a public health
need.
Public Health
Seattle-King
County
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
35
Road Services
Division
Road services builds and maintains over 2000 miles of road
and 200 bridges. They are responsible for many mitigation
activities, including those related to culvert replacement,
pavement preservation, and bridge retrofits.
Department of
Local Services
Shoreline Master
Program
King County has nearly 2,000 miles of shoreline along
major lakes and rivers and Vashon-Maury Island. These
shorelines provide habitat for fish and wildlife, places for
public enjoyment and space for wide-ranging waterfront
land uses. The Shoreline Master Program helps preserve
these spaces and uses, thereby reducing risk to hazards
including sea-level rise.
DLS – Permitting
Division
Wastewater
Treatment Division
Invest in upgrades to pipe and water treatment facilities to
make them more resilient to earthquakes, severe weather,
flooding, and climate-change.
DNRP
Integration with Departments and other Jurisdictions
Beyond departmental integration, King County works with local jurisdictions, special purpose districts,
and tribes to support effective risk reduction. King County coordinates activities related to emergency
management and hazard mitigation through two bodies, the Emergency Management Coordinating
Committee (EMCC) and the Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which are each
described in greater detail in the table below.
King County Stakeholder Integration Capabilities
ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION MEMBERSHIP
Clean Water /
Healthy Habitat
Initiative
An initiative convened by the
county executive to help
streamline projects, increase
collaboration, and improve
results for the work
accomplished through the
spending of $6 Billion over the
next decade on clean water
and habitat protection in King
County.
All county agencies
King County
Community
Rating System
Users Group
King County and the cities
who are part of CRS meet to
coordinate efforts and provide
technical assistance to each
other on maintaining and
improving CRS ratings.
• Auburn
• Bellevue
• Issaquah
• Kent
• North Bend
• Renton
• Snoqualmie
• Carnation
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
36
• Redmond
• King County
Emergency
Management
Coordinating
Committee
(EMCC)
EMCC is charged by the King
County Council with
coordinating interdepartmental
emergency preparedness
matters. EMCC works to
support departments in
developing continuity of
operations plans, preparedness
plans, and hazard mitigation
plans. It also contributes to
after action reports. EMCC
has played an important role in
the mitigation plan update
process for the county by
identifying and dedicating key
staff to participate in planning
and by reviewing and
providing feedback on
planning team activities.
All county departments are included in the
EMCC. The following are those who attend
meetings more regularly.
• King County Emergency Management
• Department of Human Resources
• Metro Transit Department
• Department of Local Services
• Public Health - Seattle and King County
• Department of Natural Resources and
Parks (DNRP)
• Department of Community and Human
Services
• Department of Adult and Juvenile
Detention
• Facilities Management Division of the
Department of Executive Services
• Director’s Office of the Department of
Executive Services
• King County Information Technology
• Office of Labor Relations
• King County Sheriff’s Office
• Office of the King County Executive
• Department of Assessments
• King County District Court
• King County Elections
• DNRP Solid Waste Division
• DNRP Waste Treatment Division
Emergency
Management
Advisory
Committee
(EMAC)
EMAC advises, assists,
reviews, and comments on
emergency management and
homeland security issues,
regional planning, and policies.
They measure and prioritize
core capabilities and
recommend homeland security
allocations and work products
to sustain and enhance
preparedness and operational
levels. Members, as set forth in
code, provide regional and
multi-disciplinary perspective,
and represent cities, fire
service, law enforcement,
The membership for EMAC is established by
the King County Council and includes the
following entities/interests:
• Central region EMS and Trauma Care
Council
• City of Bellevue
• City of Kent
• City of Renton
• City of Seattle
• 1 Utility
• 1 Faith-Based Organization
• 1 Financial Community Organization
• American Red Cross
• KC DNRP
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
37
hospitals, the Port of Seattle,
government, special purpose
districts, tribes, utilities, non-
profit agencies, and the private
sector.
• KC Metro
• KC Roads
• KC Executive Office
• King County Fire Chief’s Association
• King County Fire Commissioner’s
Association
• King County Police Chief’s Association
• King County Sheriff’s Office
• KC Local Emergency Management
Planning Committee
• Muckleshoot Tribal Nation
• Northwest Healthcare Response
Network
• Port of Seattle
• 1 Private Industry Representative
• Public Health Seattle and King County
• Puget Sound Educational Services
District
• Snoqualmie Tribal Nation
• Sound Cities Association
• Washington Association of Building
Officials
• 1 Water and Sewer District
Representative
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding
Hazard mitigation projects are most often completed with funding from capital budgets as part of the
normal building and maintenance processes that occur in any jurisdiction. There is also source and use-
specific funding, such as that provided by the King County Flood Control District that is part of regular
program funding and is highlighted in the program section above. Beyond regular capital funding, there
are dedicated mitigation programs operated by state, county, and federal agencies.
Potential Sources of Hazard Mitigation Funding
PROGRAM LEAD AGENCY DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPES
BUILD Grants US
Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Grants support investments in surface
transportation infrastructure and are to
be awarded on a competitive basis for
projects that will have a significant
local/regional impact.
Transportation and
related infrastructure
retrofits, including
stormwater projects
Building Blocks
for Sustainable
Communities
U.S.
Environmental
This EPA program provides targeted,
technical assistance to communities to
Planning and feasibility
studies
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
38
Protection
Agency (EPA)
develop resilience plans, development
plans, sustainability strategies, etc.
Building
Resilient
Infrastructure in
Communities
(BRIC)
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA)
New annual mitigation grant program
that is expected to replace PDM. Will
focus more on large-scale
infrastructure projects that reduce risk
to natural hazards.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
Community
Development
Block Grants
U.S.
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
(HUD)
CDBG funds comprehensive plans,
limited infrastructure
planning/construction, feasibility
studies, community action plans.
Income and population restrictions
apply.
Housing and
infrastructure retrofits,
feasibility studies,
planning
Community
Economic
Revitalization
Board
WA
Department of
Commerce
CERB provides loan funding to local
jurisdictions for public infrastructure
to support private business growth and
expansion.
Infrastructure retrofits,
public-private
partnerships
Combined
Water Quality
Funding
Program
WA
Department of
Ecology
Fund sources for projects associated
with publicly-owned wastewater and
stormwater facilities. The integrated
program also funds nonpoint source
pollution control activities.
Drinking-water system
improvements,
feasibility studies,
source-water
protection,
infrastructure retrofits
Cooperating
Technical
Partnership
Program
FEMA The program creates partnerships
between FEMA and qualified local and
state partners to create, maintain, and
publicize up-to-date flood and other
hazard maps and data.
Planning, outreach,
feasibility studies
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
WA
Department of
Health
The Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) provides loans to
drinking water systems to pay for
infrastructure improvements. In some
cases, partial loan forgiveness is
offered.
Infrastructure retrofits,
source-water
protection, planning,
drinking-water system
improvements
Emergency
Watershed
Protection
Program
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
(NRCS)
Emergency recovery measures for
runoff retardation and erosion
prevention to relieve imminent hazards
created by a natural disaster.
Infrastructure retrofits,
slope stabilization,
source-water
protection, flood risk
reduction, erosion
prevention
Estuary and
Salmon
Department of
Fish and
ESRP provides funding restoration
and protection efforts in Puget Sound,
Acquisitions, slope
stabilization, flood risk
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
39
Restoration
Program
Wildlife
(DFW)
including projects such as flood
storage, erosion control, and climate
resilience measures.
reduction projects,
ecosystem restoration
FireWise Fuel
Mitigation Grant
Program
WA
Department of
Natural
Resources
The Fuel Mitigation Grant provides a
cost share for communities engaged in
defensible space and fuels reduction
projects.
Wildfire fuels
reduction, defensible
space
Floodplains by
Design
WA
Department of
Ecology
Floodplains by Design is the primary
grant program for projects that reduce
flood hazards while restoring the
natural functions that Washington
rivers and floodplains provide.
Slope stabilization,
ecosystem recovery,
flood-risk recovery
Flood Mitigation
Assistance Grant
Program
FEMA FMA provides funding to local
jurisdictions and states for projects and
planning that reduces or eliminates
long-term risk of flood damage to
structures insured under the NFIP.
Flood risk reduction
projects that benefit
the NFIP, including
acquisitions,
elevations, and some
structural mitigation
such as local risk
reduction structures
and dry floodproofing.
Hazard
Mitigation Grant
Program
FEMA
HMGP is authorized statewide after a
disaster declaration and is the most
flexible of FEMA’s three mitigation
programs. Jurisdictions must have an
approved hazard mitigation plan and
projects must be cost effective.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
King County
Flood Control
District Flood
Reduction
Grants
King County
Flood Control
District
The Flood Reduction Grants target
medium and small local flood
reduction projects including projects
where the control of stormwater will
have a direct benefit in reducing
flooding. Eligible applicants include
homeowners, special districts, tribes,
cities, and county agencies.
Projects can address
either existing or
potential flooding and
proposals should show
that the flooding has
current or potential
economic impacts.
King County
Budget
King County The two-year King County budget for
2019-2020 was approximately $11.6
billion dollars. Approximately 15% of
this money makes up the general fund.
Major Expenditures are: Metro Transit
(21%), Wastewater (14%), Health &
Human Services (13%), and Law,
Safety, & Justice (12%). There are
~15,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
Various
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
40
county employees with most employed
in Transit (35%), Criminal Justice
(25%), and Public Health (9%).
King County
Loss Control
Fund
Office of Risk
Management
The Loss Control Fund is for internal
county projects and is limited to
emergent risks where advance planning
and budgeting were unavailable. $2M
has been appropriated for the 2019-
2020 biennium.
Emergent risks, to
include likely
infrastructure failure
King County
Parks Levy
King County Revenue generated by the parks levy
goes to fund open space protection,
new parks, trails, and other assets. This
funding could theoretically be used for
the acquisition of threatened
properties for preservation as open
space.
Acquisition of high-
hazard properties for
preservation as open
space
Post-Fire
Hazard
Mitigation Grant
Program
U.S. EPA
Program authorized following a Fire
Management Assistance Grant
(FMAG) declaration. Program focuses
on wildfire risk and post-fire risk
mitigation, including fuels reduction
and post-fire flood control projects.
Program prioritizes the county
receiving the FMAG declaration.
Fire-related mitigation,
including defensible
space, generators, and
post-fire flood risk
reduction, planning,
feasibility studies
Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Grant
Program
FEMA
Annual program for cost-effective
mitigation projects and plans.
Jurisdiction must have a current
mitigation plan to be eligible.
Following the 2019 grant round, this
program will be replaced by BRIC.
Most long-term risk-
reduction projects that
protect against fire,
flood, earthquake, and
other natural hazards.
Public Works
Board
WA
Department of
Commerce
Low-interest loans for pre-
construction or new construction for
replacement/repair of infrastructure
for stormwater, solid waste, road, or
bridge projects. Emergency loans are
available for public projects made
necessary by a disaster or imminent
threat to public health and safety.
Utility and
infrastructure retrofits
Rural
Community
Assistance
Corporation
Rural
Community
Assistance
Corporation
Water, wastewater, stormwater, and
solid waste planning; environmental
work; to assist in developing an
application for infrastructure
Planning, feasibility
studies
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
41
improvements for small, rural
communities.
Rural Water
Revolving Loan
Fund
National Rural
Water
Association
The RWLF provides low-cost loans
for short-term repair costs, small
capital projects, or pre-development
costs associated with larger projects to
small, rural communities.
Source-water
protection, drinking
water system
improvements, other
retrofits
Source Water
Protection Grant
Program
WA
Department of
Health
Projects and studies to identify
solutions to source water protection
problems, implement protection plans,
or update data that directly benefits
source water protection.
Source-water
protection, drinking
water system
improvements, other
retrofits, feasibility
studies
Washington
Transportation
Improvement
Board
Transportation
Improvement
Board
TIB makes and manages street
construction and maintenance grants
to 320 cities and urban counties.
Infrastructure retrofits,
flood risk reduction
Urban and
Community
Forest Program
U.S.
Department of
Agriculture
Program provides technical, financial,
research and educational services to
local jurisdictions and organizations
for the preservation, protection, and
restoration of forestlands.
Natural resource
protection, public
information, planning
King County Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program
A major initiative launching as part of this plan update is the King County Hazard Mitigation Grant
Assistance Program. Led by KC EM, this program seeks to lower the barriers to applying for FEMA
grants, especially given the new opportunities associated with the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.
King County will support jurisdictions by ensuring the mitigation projects are identified in the regional
plan, offering technical assistance in developing applications, and, when requested, by administering
grants on behalf of communities that lack internal grant management capabilities. This program reflects
KC EM’s focus on end-to-end emergency management, supporting partners across all mission areas
from mitigation to recovery.
Participation in the 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.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
42
King County and 34 of the 39 incorporated areas in the County are participants in NFIP; all are currently
in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. The five jurisdictions that do not currently participate
in NFIP are Beaux Arts Village, Hunts Point, Maple Valley, Newcastle and Yarrow Point. Except for
Newcastle, these communities have no special flood hazard areas.
Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance
with NFIP criteria. Communities participating in the NFIP may adopt regulations that are more stringent
than those contained in 44 CFR 60.3, but not less stringent. The Washington State Building Code Act
requires new construction to be elevated to 1 foot above the base flood elevation or to the design flood
elevation, whichever is higher. Some communities in King County have adopted more stringent
standards. For example, a 3-foot freeboard (height above the 100-year flood elevation) is standard for
most structures in unincorporated King County.
Additionally, in the Puget Sound watershed, communities are required to regulate development in
floodplains in a way that doesn’t cause habitat loss or negative impacts to Chinook, coho, and steelhead
salmon species. This is part of the FEMA/NOAA Biological Opinion related to communities’
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are currently in a preliminary stage and are scheduled to be
published in mid-2020.
In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is the coordinating agency for floodplain management.
Ecology works with FEMA and local governments by providing grants and technical assistance,
evaluating community floodplain management programs, reviewing local floodplain ordinances, and
participating in statewide flood hazard mitigation planning. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional
staff and by Ecology. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk
reduction. All planning partners that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their
compliance and good standing. Planning partners who do not currently participate have identified
initiatives to consider enrollment in the program.
Participation in CRS
The Community Rating System is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain
management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements and rewards discounts to ratepayers
in participating communities. King County is a Class 2 community. Flood insurance premiums are
discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following
three goals of the CRS:
• Reduce flood losses.
• Facilitate accurate insurance rating.
• Promote awareness of flood insurance.
For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent.
For example, a Class 1 community receives a 45-percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community
receives a 5-percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they
receive no discount.) The CRS classes are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories:
• Public information
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
43
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness
As of this writing, there are 10 CRS-rated communities in King County.
Community Name Class % Discount in SFHA % Discount in non-SFHA
Auburn 5 25 10
Bellevue 5 25 10
Issaquah 5 25 10
Kent 5 25 10
North Bend 5 25 10
Renton 5 25 10
Snoqualmie 5 25 10
Carnation 7 15 5
Redmond 5 25 10
King County 2 40 10
Regional Risk and Probability Summaries
While most of the risk and probability of future occurrence for hazards is similar for all jurisdictions in
King County, some are at greater risk due to specific geographic features including proximity to
floodplain (increases flood probability and risk from earthquakes due to liquefaction). For natural
hazards, the relative probability of occurrence within 25-50 years (High, Medium, or Low) and relative
risk as described in each jurisdiction’s annex are identified in the table below.
The table below does not include Avalanche risk (high annual probability of occurrence, but only in
unincorporated areas) nor tsunami (low probability of occurrence for all areas, exposure is currently only
mapped for the cities of Des Moines and Seattle. Acronyms: WSD = Water and Sewer District, WD =
Water District, SD = School District, RFA = Regional Fire Authority, UD = Utility District.
Community Name Earthquake Flood Landslide Weather Volcano Wildfire
Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk Prob Risk
Auburn
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue
Bothell
Burien
Clyde Hill
Covington
Des Moines
Duvall
Hunts Point
Issaquah
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
44
Community Name Earthquake Flood Landslide Weather Volcano Wildfire
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Medina
Newcastle
North Bend
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
SeaTac
Shoreline
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Woodinville
Cedar River WSD
Covington WD
Coal Creek UD
Highline WD
King County WD 20
King County WD 90
King County WD
125
Lake Meridian WD
North City WD
NE Sammamish
WSD
Northshore UD
Renton SD
Sammamish Plateau
WSD
Skyway WSD
Soos Creek WSD
South King Fire
Valley RFA
Valley View Sewer
Vashon Island Fire
Woodinville WD
Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
45
Risk Assessment Overview
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment covers 8 natural and 6 human-
caused hazards.
• Avalanche
• Earthquake
• Tsunami
• Volcano
• Landslide
• Wildfire
• Flood
• Severe Weather
• Hazardous Materials
• Health Incident
• Terrorism
• Civil Disturbance
• Cyber Incident
• Dam Failure
These assessments were developed using the best available data from sources including:
• Washington State Fusion Center (Terrorism, Civil Disturbance)
• King County Dam Safety Program (Dam Failure)
• King County IT (Cyber Incident)
• Public Health Seattle-King County (Health Incident)
• Washington State Emergency Management LEPC Program (Hazardous Materials)
• King County Flood Control District (Flood)
• Washington State Emergency Management Geologic Hazards Program (Tsunami, Earthquake,
Volcano)
• King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (Wildfire, Severe Weather)
• Washington State Department of Transportation (Avalanche)
• King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (Landslide)
• King County Department of Permitting (Structure Fire)
• Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Landslide, Earthquake, Tsunami, Volcano,
Wildfire)
• King County Facilities Management Division
• King County Hazard Inventory and Risk Assessment, 2016
• FEMA RiskMAP Program, King County Risk Report (Earthquake, Landslide, Volcano, Flood)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
46
Data sources are cited with footnotes throughout the plan. In addition to using data and report
information from the above sources, many also contributed time and expertise to the review and
development of the individual risk assessment chapters.
Methodology
This risk assessment is intended to provide a robust overview containing key details, vulnerabilities, and
considerations to enable emergency managers to plan for disasters. The profiles are designed to be brief,
and yet also comprehensive enough, to be useful during a disaster response to help provide information
on potential impacts and priority vulnerabilities.
This assessment focuses on examining impacts (consequences) from hazards on 10 different topic areas.
These areas reflect best practices as identified by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
(EMAP) plus priority areas identified by King County.
• King County residents – all residents in King County
• Vulnerable populations – populations more likely to experience losses and recover more slowly
from an incident. Different vulnerable populations may be highlighted depending on the
incident type. For example, wildfire in King County is overwhelmingly a problem of smoke and
smoke impact people with respiratory vulnerabilities most severely.
• Property – private property
• The economy – economic functions and assets
• The environment – natural resources, wildfire, fish, plants, and natural systems
• Health systems – hospitals, pharmacies, and the ability for people to find and receive care
• Government operations (continuity of operations) – King County government operations
• Responders – fire, police, EMS, and related services
• Lifeline infrastructure – power, water/wastewater, transportation, communications
• Public confidence in jurisdiction’s governance and capabilities
Each profile also looks at priority vulnerabilities in order to identify those areas requiring immediate
focus before, during, and after an incident.
Data
GIS data was taken from a variety of King County, Washington State, and federal sources. The data was
sourced via King County GIS, including layers owned by both GIS and by other entities. Some of the
GIS data analyzed in completing this risk assessment include:
TITLE DESCRIPTION SOURCE
Active Faults Known active faults in the Puget
Sound region
WA State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
47
Wastewater
Systems
King County wastewater treatment
and conveyance systems
King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks Water Treatment
Division (DNRP)
Water Supply
Facilities
Seattle water supply facilities and
conveyance systems. These are used
to supply Seattle as well as many
cities.
City of Seattle Public Utilities
Bridges King County-maintained bridges King County Roads
Rail Routes All rail routes, including BNSF and
Sound Transit
King County GIS
Transit Routes Metro transit routes King County Metro
Arterials Arterial streets King County Roads
Levees and
Revetments
County-maintained flood protection
structures.
DNRP, King County Flood Control
District
BPA
Transmission
Lines
Bonneville Power Administration
power transmission systems
Bonneville Power Administration
Historic Buildings Designated historic buildings King County GIS
Schools School facilities King County GIS
Government
Buildings
King County government buildings King County GIS, Facilities
Management Division
Hospitals and
Medic Units
Hospitals and medic unit locations King County GIS
Pharmacies Pharmacy locations King County GIS
First Responder
Facilities
Locations of fire, police, and EMS King County GIS
City Boundaries City jurisdictional boundaries King County GIS
Rivers and Lakes Waterbodies King County GIS
Building Address
Points
Building address points and age King County Assessor
Building Age Building address points and age King County Assessor
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
48
Volcanic Hazard
Areas
Lahar, lava flow, and lahar sediment
areas
WA DNR, U.S. Geological Survey
Landslide Hazard
Areas
Historic, deep landslide risk areas WA DNR
Preliminary 100-
year Floodplain
1% annual chance, special flood
hazard area as mapped by FEMA.
Will take effect as the regulatory
floodplain in 2020.
FEMA, King County Flood Control
District
Floodways The regulatory areas including the
channel and adjacent land areas that
must be preserved in order to
discharge the base flood without
increasing the water surface elevation
by more than a designated height.
FEMA, King County Flood Control
District
Liquefaction
Potential
Areas of NEHRP soil classes D, E,
and F.
WA DNR
Landslide Buffer
Areas
Buffers of 50 feet around known
landslide areas.
King County GIS
Statewide Roads State and federal highways King County GIS
Health Insurance
Coverage
Individuals with health insurance, by
Census Tract
US Census, American Community
Survey (ACS)
Travel Time to
Work
Travel time to work on average by
Census Tract
US Census, ACS
Means of
Transportation to
Work
Means of transportation to work, by
percent, by Census Tract
US Census, ACS
Race Self-identified race US Census, ACS
Ethnicity Self-identified ethnicity US Census, ACS
Income Income (range) US Census, ACS
Languages Languages other than English spoken
at home
US Census, ACS
Disability Status Counts of disabled persons King County GIS
Education Educational attainment by years, by
Census Tract
US Census, ACS
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
49
This and any additional data can be viewed on the ArcGIS online hazard map. This map will be available
at least during the plan review and adoption phase and may be made available permanently:
http://kingcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=41abdeae1bf44907a9c14b98a2e5fb9
2.
Vulnerable Populations and Population-Based Vulnerability
Population vulnerability (or social vulnerability) measures factors that theoretically increase the likelihood
of a population to suffer more losses during disasters or recover more slowly after being impacted. There
is a growing body of work on this kind of vulnerability; however, how the data is reported can obscure
the root causes of vulnerability when converted into an index or score. Knowing the root causes of
vulnerability and how those vulnerabilities contribute to losses during disasters is critical for hazard
mitigation professionals since each cause may require a unique strategy to address. For example, if the
vulnerability results from language differences, then this can be addressed with robust translation and
outreach services.
Communities that consider population-based vulnerability and social justice, often do it as an overlay –
examining the impacts of a proposed project on vulnerable populations, for example, after the project
has already been prioritized or mapping the location of vulnerable populations in accordance with some
composite score and institutionally-defined definition of vulnerability. It is unclear if mapping alone, if
awareness alone, has had much impact on where the bulk of resources are directed.
For this analysis, we examine the best available data of factors that have been found to lead to increased
losses or recovery times following hazard events. This is to establish areas with different kinds of
heightened vulnerability. We then overlay data on race, ethnicity, and income. This is to establish where
equity may be a concern, where causes of vulnerability overlap with historically underrepresented
minority populations.
Determinants of Population Vulnerability
Good data at the appropriate scale was not available for all the below factors. However, these are factors
that were identified through research and by the planning team as critical determinants of vulnerability.
Maps of a selection of these factors, along with priority hazard areas, follow the list of variables.
Population factors (population-based measures)
1. Home Ownership Status (Renter)
2. Age (old or young)
Tenure Housing tenure (ownership) status King County GIS
HAZUS for
earthquake
(Seattle Fault,
Cascadia
Subduction Zone)
HAZUS runs for Seattle Fault 7.1 and
Cascadia Subduction Zone 9.0
scenarios
FEMA RiskMAP
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
50
3. Unemployment
4. Income
5. Wealth
6. Access and Functional Needs/Disability
7. Dependence on public transportation
8. Language other than English spoken at home
9. No health insurance
10. Hazard insurance coverage
11. Minimum wage employment/service sector employment
12. Families with dependents
13. Living in poverty
14. Crime rate
15. Years of schooling completed (HS, BA, MA, etc.)
Accessibility and capital factors (access/infrastructure measures/social capital)
• Access to services (schools, libraries, community centers, county/city facilities)
• Quality of public facilities (public facility effective age)
• Quality of schools
• Access to hospitals or health clinics
• Quality of hospitals/health clinics
• Access to phone and internet
• Average age of housing
• Average commute time/distance to work
• Per capita government spending
• Neighborhood engagement (civic engagement, neighborhood association, something else?)
Meta-factors (determinants of equity)
• Race/ethnicity
• Age
• Income
• Immigrant/refugee status
The results from this analysis will be used to promote more effective, equitable disaster mitigation,
response, and recovery by identifying key vulnerabilities and areas that may require additional
investment. Also, this analysis will help identify areas where public infrastructure is older or less resilient,
or where hazard risk is greater, so that additional investments can be targeted in those areas.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
51
The following maps illustrate several of the above variables associated with greater hazard risk along with
high hazard areas and non-white populations. This is just a selection of potential variables and illustrates
how high-hazard areas, factors associated with hazard risk, and communities of color or with higher rates
of disability may overlap. The highest population-risk areas in King County tend to be areas south of
Seattle in the Green River Valley. These areas also are areas with the highest hazard risk. Investments
that target critical public infrastructure and support structures in these communities would likely have
the best cost-benefit ratio. Investments in these areas would have the added benefit of also promoting
more equitable access to high-quality infrastructure and services for populations historically underserved
by public investment.
Homeownership (Darker=More Homeowners) Disability (Darker=Higher Rate)
Median Household Income (Darker=Higher) People of Color (Darker=Higher Percentage)
Liquefaction Potential (Darker=More Risk) 100-Year Floodplains
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
52
Speak Language Other Than English (High-Low) Car Dependency (Darker=More Car Dependent)
Jurisdiction-Specific Risk Assessments
In addition to this countywide risk assessment, each planning partner completed a risk assessment
focusing on the priority hazards, vulnerabilities, and consequences. These assessments are contained in
each planning partner annex. These assessments will have much more detail about individual jurisdiction
risks and should supplement the wider lens of the risk profiles contained in the core plan.
To complete their assessments, jurisdictions were provided with GIS data and an ArcGIS online map
containing relevant data on hazards and impacts. The data is the same as that used in the base plan risk
assessments, but jurisdictions were asked to focus on impacts specific to their assets and boundaries.
Jurisdictions assessed risk in two ways.
First, jurisdictions looked at hazards that could impact them, how susceptible/vulnerable they are to
those hazards, and the consequences/impacts of a hazard event. The task was to develop “risk elevator
pitches” that summarize the key elements of hazard risk in a way accessible to elected officials and the
public.
Second, jurisdictions were asked to consider an asset-based approach, looking at their priority assets, the
hazards that threaten those assets, and the consequences of losing the asset. All jurisdictions were
encouraged to complete this process, but only special purpose districts were required to complete it. The
goal of this approach was to identify assets that needed mitigation.
In addition to these risk summaries, a map showing the spatially discrete hazards (flood, liquefaction
potential, steep slopes) was developed for cities.
In developing their risk assessments, jurisdictions held internal meetings to select the list of hazards that
would be included and to assess the relative risk of each hazard. Most used a high-medium-low approach
for impact, where high impact is a debilitating event and moderate impacts are serious events that disrupt
operations for multiple days. For those that also considered probability separately from the base plan, a
high probability event is likely to occur on an annual basis. These jurisdiction-specific risk assessments
are not designed to be exhaustive but should give a much clearer picture of risk and vulnerability than is
normally available from countywide assessments.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
53
King County Development Trends and Risk Trajectory
From 2010 to 2018 King County has grown at a rate of 13.4% per year.3 This population growth has
coincided with a near doubling of total assessed property values in the county from $340 billion in 2014
to $606 billion in 2019.4 Over $44 billion worth of new construction was assessed from 2014-2018.
Property values stabilized in most of the county in 2018, although many unincorporated areas, especially
in the northeast of the county around Carnation and Duvall, continued to grow at double-digit rates.
The huge growth in property values and development of new lands has also coincided with a growth in
diversity. In 2018, the total population identifying as white declined by nearly 5000 persons while the
non-white population grew dramatically. While this is a small change, it indicates that the future of King
County will be more diverse and more populous.
Also, since 2015 the available science on risk has improved markedly. King County has new landslide
hazard data from Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR). There is also updated
tsunami data indicating far greater risk than previously recognized in the coastal areas. New climate
change data is available in the Puget Sound State of Knowledge Report.5 Finally, WA DNR is expected
to publish a draft wildland-urban interface fire risk map by the end of 2019, helping to show the extent
of fire risk, much of it spurred by the growth indicated above.
As development has occurred, jurisdictions have invested in risk reduction measures such as the
installation of ductile iron pipe to replace cast iron pipe in water systems. While this work is critical, in
most jurisdictions it is unlikely to be complete for 20-30 years. Other work has included bridge retrofits,
wastewater system improvements, flood risk reduction projects, and risk assessments and planning.
Nevertheless, there are dozens to hundreds of bridges in need of upgrades to keep the transportation
system functioning in the event of a major earthquake.
New science showing more risk and a dramatic increase in population, especially in areas not previously
developed, indicates that the county trajectory is toward more exposure and vulnerability. While there is
ongoing work to reduce risk, it is not keeping up with existing needs, much less the needs of a larger,
more diverse population living across a larger area.
ESTIMATED CHANGES IN RISK 2015-2020
SECTOR RISK CHANGE (Increased -,
Decreased +, No Change =)
EXPLANATION
3 King County Office of the Executive. 2018. 2018 King County Quick Facts. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/Demographics.aspx.
4 King County Office of Economic and Financial Analysis. July 19, 2019. July 2019 King County Economic and
Revenue Forecast. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/business/Forecasting/documents/July2019_Forecast.ashx?la=en.
5 Climate Impacts Group. 2015. Puget Sound State of Knowledge Report. Accessed online on 8/28/19 from
http://cses.washington.edu/picea/mauger/ps-sok/ps-sok_cover_and_execsumm_2015.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
54
King County Residents With a larger population that is likely no
more prepared, risk to King County
residents is estimated to have increased.
Vulnerable Populations While there has been a large increase in
median income, there is more income
inequality and housing insecurity due to
housing costs and other issues. There are
also many new immigrants who may not be
reached by disaster messaging or be familiar
with the region’s hazards. Overall risk to
vulnerable populations has increased as
these populations have grown.
Property While the construction boom is reducing
risk in some areas, some construction
patterns, such as building homes close
together, is increasing risk from fire. Also,
the new development, some of it in
marginal areas is increasing risk. This is
especially acute in areas in the wildland-
urban interface, near floodplains, or on
unstable soils.
The Economy The economy has grown but is also
susceptible to a shock caused by a disaster
that could permanently displace the major
companies that make this region so
competitive. Many of these companies are
highly mobile and a disaster that destroys
the region’s infrastructure could devastate
the economy.
The Environment With heightened climate change and more
development, the environment is more
threatened by hazards including wildfire
and flooding.
Health Systems Health systems have seen modest
improvement in overall risk as hospitals are
upgraded to higher seismic standards.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
55
Government
Operations
No increase or decrease in risk to
government operations is identified. While
there continues to be some modest
investment in the resilience of public
facilities, there is still significant risk of
disruption of services during a major
incident, as demonstrated during the 2019
snow event. A seismic event would still
threaten the ability of King County
government to provide services and many
buildings may not be useable.
Responders No change in the risk to responders is
identified.
Infrastructure Systems Although not sufficient to meet the need,
investments in infrastructure have modestly
reduced risk.
Public Confidence Mixed Public confidence in the jurisdictions’
capabilities is estimated to be mixed. On
one hand, emergency management and
county government are delivering services
on a huge scale and received relatively
positive feedback from the February 2019
storms. On the other, there has been little
movement to systematically improve
earthquake resilience, something frequently
reported by the media.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
56
Regional Risk Profile: Avalanche
Hazard Description
Avalanche hazards in the Northwest are associated with winter storms in the Cascade and Olympic
Mountain ranges. Avalanches occur when a snow pack loses its grip on a slope and slides downhill.
Typically, slopes of between 20 to 30 degrees and snow packs of 34 inches or more may produce
avalanches. Most natural avalanches occur in back country little used by humans during such weather
conditions. This tends to minimize exposure to avalanche impacts. Most vulnerable are travelers and
winter recreation enthusiasts using Stevens Pass in
northeastern King County, Snoqualmie Pass in
central-eastern King County, and Crystal Mountain
Ski Area near Chinook and Cayuse passes in just
outside of southeastern King County.6
Regionally, severe winter weather in the form or
snowfall in the Cascade Mountains results in a
snowpack that – when conditions are right – can
lead to a natural or man-made/induced avalanche.
Avalanches can result in impacts to transportation
through mountain passes and injuries or death to people using the mountain backcountry recreationally.
Avalanche danger in King County is highest during severe winter weather from October through March
annually. When moist air from the Pacific rises to climb the Cascade Mountains and meets the colder air
of the U.S. interior, precipitation often falls as snow from late October through March or April each
year.
The most frequent impact from avalanche is from pass closures, especially along Snoqualmie Pass on I-
90. In particularly severe events, both Snoqualmie and Stevens
pass may close for days at a time, effectively cutting the state in
half. The other routes that cross the cascades, US 12, US 20,
SR 410, and SR 14, are not suitable for large traffic volumes
and large trucks and are often closed when I-90 and US 2 are
closed. This occurred most recently during the February 2019
snowstorm. In that event, all the east-west highways were
closed, limiting King County’s road salt supply from the east
side of the state. The snowfall totals at the pass exceeded
normal, with 118 total inches in February alone (average
accumulation in February is 73.9 inches). February 12, 2019
broke the 24-hour snowfall record, with 31.5 inches recorded
6 Washington State Department of Transportation, Prediction of Snow and Avalanches in Maritime Climates: Final
Report, WA-RD 203.1, December 1989, p.3.
Stevens Pass WSDOT avalanche control areas
Snoqualmie Pass WSDOT avalanche control areas.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
57
by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) crews recorded at the summit. During
this event, I-90 was closed beginning Monday afternoon, February 11, reopening on Thursday morning
due to avalanche danger.
Avalanche impact areas are mapped for Snoqualmie and Stevens passes, which are maintained
throughout the winter by WSDOT crews. Chinook and Cayuse passes are closed during the winter due
to avalanche danger and difficulty of maintaining a clear roadway.
In addition to the roadway risk, two of the state’s three cross-state railways pass through the Cascades.
These railroads travel along a route similar to the major highways and are similiarly susceptible to
avalanche. Major snowfall and avalanche danger can disrupt rail freight traffic across the state, with
significant economic impacts.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Recreational areas that support snowshoeing, alpine and cross-country skiing, snowmobile areas, and
winter hikers and campers are most at risk from avalanche incidents. Typically, injuries to recreational
hikers, skiers, snow boarders, and climbers occur outside managed areas. Several stretches of Interstate
90 and Highway 2 in King County are vulnerable to avalanches between October and April each year,
depending on snow packs and weather conditions. Both Snoqualmie and Stevens Pass are significant
commercial routes. Cargos are carried between the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and eastern
Washington. When Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes are closed, I-84 in Oregon or air travel are the only
practical ways to travel between Spokane and Seattle.
The popular backcountry skiing areas around Stevens and Snoqualmie passes are high-hazard zones
where avalanche fatalities are relatively common. WSDOT posts signs, though these warnings are
frequently ignored. People engaged in snow sports in these areas are often among the most experienced
enthusiasts; however, even with safety equipment, they may trigger or fall victim to avalanches. There
are, on average, one to three fatalities in avalanches statewide each year. Hundreds of avalanches are
thought to occur around the Cascades each winter, though most without any human cause or impact.
There are twelve common factors that contribute to avalanche danger, including old snow depth, old
snow surface, new snow depth, new snow type, snow density, snow fall intensity, precipitation intensity,
settlement, wind direction and wind speed, temperature, subsurface snow crystal structure, and tidal
effect.7 Research done at Snoqualmie Pass indicates that most natural avalanches occur within one hour
after the onset of rain over a weakened snow pack.8 Large amounts of new snow accumulation also
increases avalanche risk, especially when coupled with wide temperature swings.
7 Kruse, Scott M. “Avalanche Evaluation Check List,” Avalanche Review vol. 8, No 4, February 1990
8 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation – Avalanche
Control http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/avalanche4
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
58
Significant Historic Avalanches 2001-2019 – Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes9
YEAR PASS FATALITIES AND INJURIES
1910 (Historic Maximum) Stevens Pass (railway) 96 Fatalities
2001 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 1 Fatality, 2 Injuries
2002 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 10 Injuries
2003 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Fatality, 1 Injury
2004 None None
2005 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 1 Fatality
2006 None None
2007 Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 2 Fatalities
2008 None None
2009 None None
2010 Snoqualmie Pass 3 Injuries
2011 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 6 Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2012 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 12+ Injuries, 6 Fatalities
2013 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 4+ Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2014 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 7+ Injuries, 1 Fatality
2015 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 2 Injuries, 2 Fatalities
2016 None None
2017 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 2 Injuries, 1 Fatality
2018 Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass 1 Injury, 3 Fatalities
2019 None None
9 Northwest Avalanche Center, Accident Reports. Accessed online on 5/13/19 from
https://www.nwac.us/accidents/accident-reports/
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
59
Scenario Drivers
There are two kinds of avalanches, loose and slab. Loose avalanches occur when light-grained snow
exceeds its “angle of repose”, collapses a snow drift or bank and fans out as it slides downhill. A slab
avalanche occurs when heavy or melting snow resting on top of looser snow breaks away from the slope
and moves in a mass. The latter often occurs when rains soak the top layer of snow on moderately
sloped terrain.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Back-country
recreationists
Snowmobilers, hikers, and skiers in back-country and off-trail environments
are at the highest risk from avalanche.
Transportation networks
I-90 and US-2 are the most vulnerable routes to avalanche. Disruptions to
both are common during the winter, though most are for a short duration. A
long-duration disruption could have significant economic consequences.
Public safety officers and
volunteers
Search and Rescue regularly travel on search missions for missing
recreationists, putting them at risk from avalanche as well.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Avalanche conditions can cause closure of ski areas like: Alpental, Hyak
(Summit East), Ski Acres (Summit Central), Stevens Pass, and/or Crystal
Mountain. The recreational skiers and the people who are seasonally
employed can be impacted when these conditions close ski areas. People
who ski “out of bounds” take exceptional risks in locations where avalanche
control does not maintain safe conditions and search and rescue operations
may be hampered.
Pass closures may inconvenience people by causing them to either take
commercial flights between eastern and western Washington or cause them
to take wide routes around the mountain area through the Columbia Gorge
between Washington and Oregon.
There are no major populations in King County that are exposed to
avalanche terrain. The King County community closest to avalanche country
is Skykomish. It has not experienced an avalanche in recent memory.
Vulnerable populations No specific impacts are expected to vulnerable populations for this hazard.
Property Property exposed to avalanches include ski area lifts and equipment, small
clusters of seasonal vacation homes and utilities supporting ski areas, ski
lodges, ski area support operations, and those vacation properties.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
60
The economy Closure of ski areas from avalanche danger usually lasts only a short time.
While revenue to one or more ski areas may be reduced, no long-term
economic impacts can be expected from avalanche issues.
Heavy snows and avalanche danger may close Stevens and/or Snoqualmie
Pass for extended periods. These pass closures can impede transportation of
goods between eastern/western Washington, impact the Port of Seattle and
port/countries around the/Pacific Rim.
Avalanche closure of King County passes may cause motorists and truckers
to reroute through Interstate 84 in Portland.
The most significant avalanche event in Washington State, and the deadliest
in US history, occurred in 1910 near Stevens Pass. Two trains carrying
passengers were hit by an avalanche killing 96 people. Economic impacts are
also substantial. A WSDOT study claimed that a four-day closure at
Snoqualmie Pass in the winter of 2007/2008 cost the state $27.9M in
economic output, 170 jobs, and $1.42M in state revenue (2008 dollars).10
The environment Avalanches are natural events; however, they kill wildlife and trees and can
reshape the landscape.
Health systems There are no known healthcare facilities or systems exposed to avalanches.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
Avalanche areas are remote to most King County operations. Where
avalanches may occur, King County Sheriff’s Office Search and Rescue, Ski
patrols, and volunteers may be involved. This may include BARK, a group
that provides K-9 search capability for avalanche victims. Support may also
be required from the aviation unit of the King County Sheriff’s Office and
from Emergency Medical Service units.
Support personnel for avalanche control are provided by Washington State
Department of Transportation.
Responders When avalanches bury or injury skiers and backcountry hikers, the King
County Sheriff’s Office Search and Rescue team(s) may be deployed along
with trained volunteers and specially trained volunteer K-9 units like BARK
(Backcountry Avalanche Rescue K-9). Most search missions occur in or
around the off-trail perimeter of ski areas like Snoqualmie Acres, Hyak,
10 Ripley, Richard, “Four-day Snoqualmie Pass closure cost $27.9 million,” Spokane Journal, 11/20/2008. Accessed
online: https://www.spokanejournal.com/local-news/four-day-snoqualmie-pass-closure-cost-279-million/
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
61
Alpental, Crystal Mountain, and Steven’s Pass. Buried skiers are often
severely injured or may be killed from their injuries or suffocation under
large amounts of snow in areas difficult to reach.
Infrastructure systems There are no critical facilities located in areas of the county subject to
avalanches. Critical infrastructure that may be impacted includes the BNSF
railway (also used by Amtrak) and the east west highways, US 2 (Stevens
Pass) and I-90 (Snoqualmie Pass). Chinook Pass usually closes from October
through May.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
The public at risk has a good understanding of the risks from avalanche.
Warnings are regularly posted and announced to skiers and back country
hikers during the winter months.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
62
Regional Risk Profile: Civil Disorder
Hazard Description
Civil Disorder and civil disturbances can range from minor to significant events that can disrupt the
functioning of a community for a few days, weeks or months. A worst case-scenario for a King County
civil disorder would be an incident that takes place in a large urban environment and lasts for an
extended period of time. An example of a worst-case scenario was the 1999 Seattle World Trade
Organization rioting which significantly impacted the City and led to numerous injuries and arrests. The
rioting raised Seattle's cost of handling the conference to $9 million from an earlier estimated city cost
of $6 million surpassing worst-case projections11. In addition, downtown Seattle businesses lost an
estimated $20 million in property damage and lost sales during the WTO conference.
Title 18 of the United States Code defines civil disorder and lists the crimes associated with civil
disorder. In Section 231 of Chapter 12, defines civil disorder as: “any public disturbance involving acts
of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in
damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual…(a)(1)…use, application or making
of any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to
persons…or…(a)(2)…transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or
explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be
used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder…or…(a)(3)…commit any act to obstruct, impede, or
interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of
official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder…”.12
The term civil disobedience in contrast is a non-violent form of protest or resistance to obeying certain
laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power. Civil disobedience has been
promoted by nationalist movements in Africa and India, the civil rights movement of the U.S., and
labor and anti-war movements in many countries. Civil disobedience is sometimes equated with protests
or non-violent resistance. Acts of civil disobedience can start peacefully but can lead to violence. In this
context, civil disorder arising from civil disobedience in which participants turn violent and antagonistic
toward public safety and civil authority is illegal. Washington state law defines civil disorder as “any
public disturbance involving acts of violence that is intended to cause an immediate danger of, or to
result in, significant injury to property or the person of any other individual.” Under Revised Code of
Washington 9A.48.120, civil disorder training “as (1)…a person is guilty of civil disorder training if he or
she teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any device or
technique capable of causing significant bodily injury or death to persons, knowing, or having reason to
11 CBC News. January 6, 2000. WTO protests hit Seattle in the pocketbook. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/wto-protests-hit-seattle-in-the-pocketbook-1.245428.
12 Office of the Law Revision Council. 18 USC Ch. 12: Civil Disorders. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
63
know or intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil
disorder”…and (2) classifies it as a “class B felony.”
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Civil disorder may result from many situations and encompass a broad spectrum of civil action that
ranges from peaceful events to other forms of disturbance caused by a group of people. The severity of
such disturbances often reflects the degree of public displeasure or expression of discontent. Examples
of civil disorder include, but are not necessarily limited to: violent demonstrations and other forms of
obstructions, riots, sabotage, and other forms of crime. Civil disorder can be a dangerous condition that
can become increasingly chaotic and volatile.
Laws have evolved that govern civil disorder and peacefully resolve conflict. In the United States,
gathering in a crowd is constitutionally protected under “the right of the people to peacefully assemble.”
However, assemblies that are not peaceable are generally not protected. The laws that deal with
disruptive conduct are generally grouped into offenses that disturb the public peace. They range from
misdemeanors, such as blocking sidewalks or challenging another to fight, to felonies, such as looting
and rioting.13
The circumstances surrounding civil disorder may be spontaneous or may result from escalating
tensions as was demonstrated during 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization protests. Civil disorder
can erupt anywhere but the most likely locations are those areas with large population groupings or
gatherings.14 Sites that are attractive for political rallies should be viewed as potential locations for the
epicenter of civil disorder events. Disruption of critical infrastructure may occur during very severe civil
disorder events. Public services such as water, power, communication, and transportation may be
temporarily unavailable.
Civil disorder can also occur in proximity to locations where a ‘trigger event’ occurred as was the case in
January 2017 at University of Washington when demonstrators and counter-demonstrators gathered as
a politically conservative commentator was scheduled to speak. Violent protests took place on campus
and a person was shot.
The Seattle Mardi Gras riot occurred on February 27, 2001, when disturbances broke out in the Pioneer
Square neighborhood during Mardi Gras celebrations. There were numerous random attacks on revelers
over a period of about three and a half hours. There were reports of widespread brawling, vandalism,
and weapons being brandished. Damage to local businesses exceeded $100,000. About 70 people were
13 Revised Code of Washington Title 9A.
14 Mid-America Regional Council. 2015. Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.marc.org/Emergency-Services-9-1-1/pdf/2015HMPdocs/HMP2015_Sec4-HAZ-CivilDisorder.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
64
reported injured. Several women were sexually assaulted. One man, Kris Kime, died of injuries sustained
during an attempt to assist a woman being brutalized.15
Civil disorder can also occur as a collective outburst from a causal factor or driver. For example, past
May Day protests in Seattle have routinely exhibited violence or vandalism. A 2013 May Day protest in
downtown Seattle turned violent with police responding to demonstrators throwing rocks, bottles, metal
pipes, fireworks -- and even a skateboard. The clashes left eight officers with injuries, and police
reporting the arrests of 17 people on various offenses including property destruction and assault. During
the clashes, police deployed flash-bang grenades and tackled unruly protesters to the ground.16 In 2016
May Day protest in Seattle a peaceful march turned violent when protesters lit fireworks and threw
rocks and Molotov cocktails at police. Nine people were arrested and five officers were injured in the
clashes.
While May Day is not recognized as an official holiday, many treat it as a nationwide day of strike with
thousands turning out for peaceable protests and marches in Seattle.17 Other groups, such as anti-
capitalists, anti-fascists, radical environmentalists and anarchists plan May Day events too with chaos
and violence often resulting in arrests, infrastructure damage and interruption to transportation services.
These aren’t the only groups to demonstrate on May Day. In the 1970s, anti-war protesters took to the
streets of Seattle. Anti-police brutality activists joined anarchists in 2015.18
The ultimate severity of any civil disorder event will depend on the magnitude of the event and its
location. The more widespread an event is, the greater the likelihood of excessive injury, loss of life and
property damage. Additional factors, such as the ability of law enforcement to contain the event, are
also critical in minimizing damages.
Against this backdrop and historical precedence, King County will continue to experience civil disorder
stemming from civil disturbance in which participants turn violent and antagonistic toward civil
authority in Seattle and other communities. However, based on King County’s experience with such
disturbances, the probability that such incidents will develop into mass violence of civil disorder remains
low.
15 Burton, Lynsi. February 16, 2015. Looking back: Mardi Gras riots of 2001. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/Looking-back-Mardi-Gras-riots-of-2001-6084162.php.
16 Watts, Amanda and Lindy Royce-Bartlett. May 2, 2013. 17 arrested as Seattle May Day protests turn violent. CNN.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/seattle-may-day-protests/index.html.
17 Mirfendereski, Taylor. April 30, 2017. What is May Day? King 5 News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/what-is-may-day/281-435393398.
18 Guevara, Natalie. May 1, 2019. May Day: A primer on the labor, immigrant rights rally and its history in Seattle. The
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/May-Day-
Seattle-protest-immigration-labor-anarchy-13808200.php.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
65
Scenario Drivers
Civil Disorder can arise from many situations and be triggered by a specific issue or by combination of
causes. Instances of police violence have often been a scenario trigger for civil disorder (e.g. 2009
Oakland police shooting of Oscar Grant).19 In King County, the 2008 video of a King County deputy
assaulting a teen girl in a holding cell was referenced in a Seattle 2010 ‘March Against Police Brutality’
flyer.20 During the Capital Hill demonstration Seattle police arrested five individuals for investigation of
crimes ranging from trespassing to inciting a riot.
While demonstrations and protests can occur throughout King County, these civil actions often involve
free speech rights in public places and do not evolve into chaos and violence. Civil disorder within King
County remains centered in the Seattle area. For planning purposes, civil disorder occurs in areas of
government buildings, military bases, schools/universities, city council meetings, state/city parks and
within a downtown core.
The lines between civil disorder, civil disobedience, civil unrest and protest/demonstrations are often
times blurred and encompass a wide range of actions from peaceful to violent, from legal to illegal and
from spontaneous to highly planned. Further, while a group of people may organize and bring attention
to a specific cause through peaceful protest/demonstrations, a smaller, separate group may engage in
illegal tactics. This group of anarchists are seen as purveyors of violence and destruction.21 Typically,
criminal anarchists employ a common mode of dress which is part of a tactic frequently called "Black
Bloc." In the "Black Bloc" stratagem, throngs of criminal anarchists all dress in black clothing in an
effort to appear as a unified assemblage, giving the appearance of solidarity for the particular cause at
hand. This tactic is particularly troubling for law enforcement security forces, as no anarchist rioter can
be distinguished from another, allowing virtual anonymity while conducting criminal acts as a group.
Black Bloc gained attention in the United States in 1999 after violent protests at a meeting of the World
Trade Organization in Seattle, according to a 2001 history of the tactic on the anarchist news website,
A-Infos. Hundreds of people were arrested in the Seattle riots, which involved anarchists vandalizing
businesses.22
Not every public protest or demonstration will attract an element of criminal anarchists. The types of
demonstrations unlawful anarchists most commonly attend include those against environmentally
harmful practices, those against gentrification, and anti-police rallies.
19 Associated Press. June 13, 2011. Ex-BART Officer Johannes Mehserle Released From Jail. KPIX CBS SF Bay Area.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/13/ex-bart-officer-johannes-mehserle-
released-from-prison/.
20 JSeattle. April 9, 2010. Protest against police brutality starts at Seattle Central. Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2010/04/protest-against-police-brutality-starts-at-seattle-central/.
21 Flowers, Kory. January 30, 2015. Understanding the Black Block. Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.policemag.com/341767/understanding-the-black-bloc.
22 Rossman, Sean. February 2, 2017. G-20 summit protests: What is a Black Bloc? USA Today. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
66
Priority Vulnerabilities
Government facilities
Civil disorder incidents often target government organizations or visible
images of the government such as police vehicles, city halls, or court
facilities.
Businesses
Businesses such as banks, businesses in downtown areas or along
transportation routes, and other commercial establishments are often
targeted during looting or may be targeted for political or racist reasons such
as ownership by an immigrant group in the case of anti-immigration riots or
because they are associated with an industry being targeted by the
manifestation (banks, abortion clinics, oil company offices, etc.).
Minority and immigrant
communities
There have been multiple incidents in recent years of white-supremacist
organizations holding events that turn violent, including the Charlottesville,
VA marches that resulted in the death of a woman at the hands of a white
supremacist terrorist who drove his vehicle into a crowd.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
All King County residents can be impacted, though those who live or work in downtown
areas tend to be more exposed and impacted by civil disorder incidents.
Vulnerable
populations
Ethnic minority and immigrant communities are historically targeted by civil disorder
events. While rare in our region, the United States has a long history of racially-motivated
riots that burn and destroy minority-owned businesses and homes.
Property Much of the impact from civil disorder is to property, secondary only to economic
impacts. During the World Trade Organization protests in 2000, over $20 million in
damage was recorded by businesses and $9 million in costs to the city.
The economy Economic impacts caused by loss of business, destruction of businesses, and business
interruption can exceed the property damage dollar figures by a factor of two or more.
Lost sales and uninsured losses can permanently destroy many businesses. Areas can also
become perceived as unsafe or unwelcoming for business, further hurting the economy.
The
environment
Civil Disorder will have a minimum impact on the environment; unless, hazard material
facilities such as petroleum, chemical, and recycling are targeted in arson fires or
vandalism. The impact on the environment in such cases could be significant.
Health
systems
Health systems can be overwhelmed by civil disorder incidents, such as when large
numbers of demonstrators are brought to the hospital due to exposure to tear gas or due
to clashes with counter-demonstrators or with police.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
67
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Major incidents can bring government services to a standstill. In King County, with both
City of Seattle and King County offices are in the same area, along with court facilities. A
major incident in this area would prevent employees from getting to work or home.
Furthermore, government buildings are often targeted and can be damaged or destroyed.
Responders Responders are often on the front line of events. Responders can be targeted, causing
injury to personnel, damage to facilities, and the loss of equipment. Responders are often
injured during major incidents and, even when events are brought under control, may be
seen as an enemy of the community causing long-term trust issues.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Pipelines carrying oil are a potential target for demonstrators. Oil trains
have been targeted frequently in Washington; however, these protests do not
tend to turn violent.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems are rarely the primary target of a
demonstration and may only be peripherally impacted.
• Transportation: One of the largest impacts from a major incident is disruption to
transportation. Transit facilities and assets like busses may be destroyed. Roads
can be closed for hours or days.
• Communications: Communication systems are redundant and are unlikely to be
severely impacted by a civil disorder incident.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Major incidents can cause long-term damage to public confidence in the jurisdiction or,
especially, public safety elements of jurisdiction governance. This can cause either
alienation or, when response is proactive, help rebuild confidence and trust. To best
preserve and grow confidence, a jurisdiction must respond quickly and effectively but
without excessive force. The general public expects a quick restoration of order and
protection of property while activists may demand accountability from officials and safety
for peaceful demonstrators.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
68
Regional Risk Profile: Cyber Incident
Hazard Description
Information technology has become embedded in the ways we conduct business, work and live. In a
government context technology is fundamental to public services such as providing healthcare, public
transportation, law enforcement, citizen engagement, public utilities, and supporting tax and rate payers.
A cyber-incident can have a severe impact on technology and therefore local government’s capability to
deliver services and conduct daily operations.
A cyber incident is defined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the 2016 National Cyber
Incident Response Plan as “an event occurring on or conducted through a computer network that
actually or imminently jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity or availability of computers, information
on communication systems or networks, physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or
information systems, or information resident thereon23.
• Confidentiality refers to the ability to preserve authorized restrictions on information access and
disclosure, including means for protecting personal privacy and proprietary information.
• Integrity speaks to guarding against improper information modification or destruction and
ensuring information non-repudiation and authenticity.
o Data Integrity – The property that data has not been altered in an unauthorized manner.
Data integrity covers data in storage, during processing, and while in transit.
o System Integrity – The quality that a system has when it performs its intended function in
an unimpaired manner, free from unauthorized manipulation of the system, whether
intentional or accidental.
• Availability refers to the ability to ensure timely and reliable access to and use of information24
The nature of a cyber-incident differs from other hazards such as a landslide or an earthquake because it
often lacks physical presence or evidence. The Ponemon Institute estimates the average time to identify
a data breach is 206 days. When the breach is discovered it has already occurred or is still ongoing.25 The
average time it takes to fully contain a breach, after it has been identified, is 73 days. Organizations have
seen an increase in the identification and containment mean time over the last few years, which has been
attributed to the increasing severity of criminal and malicious attacks.26
Wherever information technologies exist and are used, cyber incidents can occur. As the County
becomes more and more dependent on its IT infrastructure it also becomes more vulnerable to IT
related disruptions. Most cyber incidents can be categorized as malicious attacks, human errors or as
23 National Cyber Incident Response Plan, Department of Homeland Security, December 2016 p. 8
24 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800 -12r1.pdf 10/14/19
25 IBM 2019 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 50
26 IBM 2019 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 50
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
69
system glitches. More than 50% of the incidents are estimated to be caused by malicious or criminal
attackers.27
Cyber incidents based on actors with malicious intent can be driven by criminal motives for profit,
extortion, and theft or to damage, destroy or interfere with infrastructure systems. Organizations
worldwide experience malicious attacks on a daily basis. Most of the attacks are unstructured with little
to no organization behind them such as a phishing attack or malware hidden in a downloaded file.
Attacks are carried out with tools aiming to take advantage of well-known flaws and are often detected
by security tools such as antivirus programs before they cause harm. However, an undetected attack can
cause significant harm to an organization before it’s detected and fully contained. More sophisticated
attacks with a specific target are less common, harder to detect and take longer to contain. These attacks
are more likely to have a catastrophic impact on an organization causing disruptions over some or all of
the network. Over the last few years attackers have been targeting organizations using sophisticated
ransomware, which encrypts the organizations’ data and demands a ransom to decrypt it. Other attacks
include cyber terrorism, aiming to cause sufficient destruction or disruption, to generate fear or
undermine entities such as an organization, a region, a sector or a country.
Cyber incidents due to human errors or system glitches can occur because of negligence, lack of
implemented policies and/or process, unclear roles and responsibilities, insufficient training,
misconfigurations etc. Such incidents are often identified and contained faster than disruptions caused
by malicious actors28. Human errors and system glitches can expose confidential data, decrease
availability and put data integrity at risk.
Data centers, physical IT infrastructure and hardware are vulnerable to other hazards such as long
lasting power outages, flooding, earthquakes and fires. In the event of such hazards it is likely that the
disruption to information technology will slow down the recovery time of critical communication
systems, essential services and hardware.
Unshielded electronic and electrical equipment is sensitive to electromagnetic pulses (EMP). An EMP is
an intense burst of electromagnetic energy resulting from natural (e.g. solar storms or space weather) or
man-made (e.g. nuclear or pule-power device). An EMP can temporarily affect or permanently damage
electronic equipment. Solar storms which affects electronic equipment are rare but have occurred in the
past impacting GPS satellite systems and signals sent to ground-based receivers29.
The impact of a cyber-incident ranges from minimal to catastrophic depending on factors such as;
magnitude of internal and external impact, affected systems, length of the incident, the nature of the
data and so on. A small earthquake, a misconfiguration which was discovered early without any
implications or a stolen encrypted laptop without sensitive data could have a minimal impact on the
County. Whereas a ransomware attack which encrypts all or most of the County’s data could have a
27 IBM 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 6
28 IBM 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Report: Global Overview. p 9
29 NASA Solar Flares, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/X -class-flares.html 2019-10-14
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
70
catastrophic impact on the organization leading to loss of County operational capability, economic and
reputational loss as well as life, health and safety risks and financial loss for individuals who live, work or
visit the region.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Regardless of the nature of the cyber incident, any area where an IT system supports the County
services can be vulnerable. In order to reduce the risk of cyber incidents it is important to manage
threats and vulnerabilities, have established backup systems, incident response plans and exercises,
disaster recovery and continuity of operations. The magnitude of a cyber-incident varies greatly based
on the extent and duration of the impact. The extent varies based on which specific system or data is
affected, possible warning time, the ability to preempt the incident and activate a well-known and
effective incident response plan.
Minor cyber incidents which are identified early and are recoverable may have some impact on daily
operations before fully contained but won’t have any significant effect on the County. A significant
incident can have a major impact not only to the County but the region. Such incidents may result in
safety and health risks, financial losses for the County and the region, reputational damage and inability
to comply with regulatory requirements including penalties and fines. It may also affect the County’s
ability to achieve critical strategic objectives and fulfill Executive priorities.
The County’s business essential services are critical to support life, health and safety in the region. Cyber
incidents affecting those systems and services can have catastrophic impact on people who live, work or
visit the region if they’re not available within 0-72 hours after the initial disruption. The business
essential services also include functions with legal requirements.
The County manages public, sensitive and confidential data on behalf of people who live, work and visit
the region. Some of the data is regulated by federal law, Revised Code of Washington and national or
global compliance regulations. Unauthorized, unanticipated, or unintentional disclosure of confidential
data could result in loss of reputational damage, or legal action against the County and can, amongst
other things result in identity theft or financial loss for impacted individuals. Personal Health
Information (PHI) is more valuable on the black market than regular Personally Identifiable
Information (PII). Therefore, there is a higher incentive for malicious attackers to target PHI than
sensitive data such as PII. Loss of critical system or data availability, functionality and operational
effectiveness, for example, may result in loss of productivity, thus impeding the end users’ performance
of their functions in supporting the County’s operations. If hardware, computer systems, networks,
servers and backups are damaged due to other hazards or accidental or deliberate damage, it can cause
additional delays. System and data integrity is lost if unauthorized changes are made to the data or IT
system by either intentional or accidental acts. If the loss of system or data integrity is not corrected,
continued use of the contaminated system or corrupted data could result in inaccuracy, fraud, or
erroneous decisions.
King County has services relying on SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) systems.
SCADA systems are industry control systems which are used to control infrastructure and facility based
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
71
processes such as wastewater treatment and airports. Cyber incidents affecting those type of services can
have severe impact on areas such as the environment, health, safety and financial consequences for the
region.
Not all IT systems utilized by the County are owned or managed by the County. The County relies on
numerous third party vendors and partners who are also exposed to cyber incidents and can therefore
be vulnerable to cyber disruptions in other organizations.
Cyber incidents occur daily across the globe. The quantity of information being stolen by malicious
attackers, destroyed or exposed as a result of a human error or made unavailable due to a system glitch
is growing each year. King County is the recipient of a constant variety of attacks ranging from scans for
weaknesses in our defenses, malware, phishing, and internet based attacks, as well as insider threats. The
timeline below comprises state, national and international events and exemplifies consequences of a
cyber-incidents.
Year Location Description
2006 United States Geomagnetic storms and solar flares disabled the Global Positioning System
(GPS) signal acquisition over the United States.
2007 Estonia Dispute regarding movement of a Russian statue led to a cyber-attack that
crippled websites for government services, banks, media outlets etc.
2008 Turkey Hackers disabled communications, alarms, and caused a crude oil refinery on
the Turkish pipeline to explode, destroying operations and facilities.
2013 United States Hackers stole credit card information from over 40 million Target customers.
2014 Washington State Washington State experienced a six hour long 911 system outage due to
human error.
2014 United States 280 000 AT&T accounts was breached by insiders who accessed user
information with malicious intent.
2015 United States The Office of Personal Management experienced a malicious attack resulting
in over 20 million compromised personnel records.
2016 Global Over 1 billion Yahoo user accounts were compromised in 2013 and was
discovered and communicated in 2016.
2017 Global Geomagnetic storm affected power grids and radios.
2017 Sweden Due to human error the National Transport Agency exposed its entire
database including military secrets and personal identifiable information of
individuals in the witness protection program, military personnel, and police
officers.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
72
2017 Global WannaCry, a ransomware virus affected over 200 000 computers across 150
countries.
2017 Washington State The University of Washington suffered a HIPAA data breach exposing
information of nearly 1 million patients due to human error.
2018 United States The City of Atlanta, Georgia and the Colorado Department of transportation
suffered a ransomware attack named SamSam.
2018 United states The City of Valdez in Alaska was targeted by a ransomware attack that
remained dormant for weeks before doing any damage.
2019 Washington State The City of Sammamish was targeted by a ransomware attack that shut down
many city online services, requiring the city manager to declare an emergency
and request support from law enforcement and King County IT and hire a
tech company to help resolve the crisis.
Scenario Drivers
Cyber incidents can occur at any time, with or without pervious warnings. Cyber incidents based on an
actors malicious intent can be driven by criminal motives for profit, extortion, and theft or to damage,
destroy or interfere with infrastructure systems. Cyber incidents due to human errors or system
glitches can occur because of negligence, lack of policy and/or process, unclear roles and
responsibilities, insufficient training, misconfigurations etc.
Advanced Persistent
Threat (APT)
An attack in which the attacker gains access to a network and remains
undetected. APT attacks are designed to steal data instead of cause
damage.
Adware A form of software that displays advertising content in a manner that is
potentially unexpected and unwanted by users, which may also include
various user-tracking functions (similar to spyware).
Denial-of-Service Attack
(DoS)
Attacks that focus on disrupting service to a network in which attackers
send high volumes of data until the network becomes overloaded and
can no longer function.
Drive-by Downloads Malware is downloaded unknowingly by the victims when they visit an
infected site.
Electro Magnetic Pulse
(EMP)
Intense burst of electromagnetic energy resulting from natural (e.g. solar
storms or space weather) or man-made (e.g. nuclear or pule-power
device) which can temporarily affect or permanently damage electronic
equipment.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
73
Hazards Earthquakes, flooding and extreme weather can cause a verity of cyber
incidents including loss of data and system availability and
communications.
Malvertising Malware downloaded when the victim clicks on an affected ad.
Malware Software that can destroy data, affect computer performance, cause a
crash, or even allow spammers to send email through an account.
Man-in-the-Middle MITM attacks mirror victims and endpoints for online information
exchange. In this type of attack, the MITM communicates with the
victim who believes is interacting with the legitimate endpoint website.
The MITM is also communicating with the actual endpoint website by
impersonating the victim. As the process goes through, the MITM
obtains entered and received information from both the victim and
endpoint
Password Attacks Third party attempts to crack a user’s password and subsequently gain
access to a system. Password attacks do not typically require malware,
but rather stem from software applications on the attacker’s system.
These applications may use a variety of methods to gain access,
including generating large numbers of generated guesses, or dictionary
attacks, in which passwords are systematically tested against all of the
words in a dictionary. Due to users reusing the same password for
different systems a password attack targeting an unrelated system can
give the attacker access to a more sought after system.
Pharming Arranging for a web’s site traffic to be redirected to a different,
fraudulent site, either through a vulnerability in an agency’s server
software or through the use of malware on a user’s computer system.
Phishing Malicious email messages that ask users to click a link or download a
program. Phishing attacks may appear as legitimate emails from trusted
third parties.
Physical damage Intentional or unintentional damage to physical infrastructure such as
data center, hardware, power grids etc.
Ransomware Malware that locks a person’s keyboard or computer to prevent them
from accessing data until you pay a ransom, usually in Bitcoin. A
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
74
popular variation of this is ransom crypto ware, which corrupts files
using a private key that only the attacker possesses
Social Engineering In the context of cyber-security, this refers to an effort to
psychologically manipulate a person, especially through
misrepresentation or deception, to gain access to information. The
manipulation often relies on the trusting nature of most individuals, or
makes use of many persons’ natural reluctance to offend others or
appear too mistrustful. The ruse may involve creating impressions that
make things appear more benevolent, trustworthy, and reliable than they
actually are. Some schemes are very complex, and involve several stages
of manipulation over a substantial period of time.
Social Engineered Trojans Programs designed to mimic legitimate processes (e.g. updating
software, running fake antivirus software) with the end goal of human-
interaction caused infection. When the victim runs the fake process, the
Trojan is installed on the system.
Spear Phishing A form of phishing that targets a specific individual, company, or
agency, usually relying on an accumulation of information to make
subsequent ruses more effective when further probing the target, until a
successful security breach finally becomes possible.
Spoofing Attempting to gain access to a system by posing as an authorized user,
synonymous with impersonating, masquerading, or mimicking.
Attempting to fool a network user into believing that a particular site
was reached, when actually the user has been led to access a false site
that has been designed to appear authentic, usually for the purpose of
gaining valuable information, tricking the user into downloading
harmful software, or providing funds to the fraudsters.
Spyware Software that allows others to gain private information about a user,
without that person’s knowledge or consent, such as passwords, credit
card numbers, social security numbers, or account information.
Structured Query
Language injection (SQLi)
Attackers use malicious SQL code for backend database manipulation to
access information that was not intended to be displayed.
Virus A program or code that attaches itself to a legitimate, executable
program, and then reproduces itself when that program is run.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
75
Worm A self-contained program (or set of programs) that is able to spread
copies of itself to other computer systems, usually through network
connections of email attachments
Zero-day exploit An attack which occurs the same day a vulnerability is discovered in the
software. The vulnerability is exploited by the attacker before it can be
fixed by a patch or a permanent solution.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Essential Services The County has identified a number of essential services which are
critical to support life, health, safety and legal requirements in the
region.
Critical SCADA Systems Industrial control systems which are used to control infrastructure and
facility based processes such as wastewater treatment and airports.
Critical facilities Facilities such as data centers and incident response facilities.
Critical devices Smart devices paired to essential services such as medical devices.
Communication system Although separate communication systems can be utilized in the event
of a severe incident the County still relies on its communications
systems for daily operations.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Anyone who is present in King County during a cyber-incident can be
impacted. Impact on residents may include: delayed services such as
transportation, impaired or cancelled healthcare services, decreased or
no availability of public services, information, and financial loss and
exposed or lost information.
Vulnerable populations
Individuals who have a direct dependency on King County for health
and safety reasons are vulnerable to cyber incidents impacting their
needed services. Other vulnerable populations include individuals and
organizations who depend on an income from the County if payments
can’t be processed, who are dependent on critical public services or
County provided transportation.
Property Cyber incidents can cause physical damage if property such as facilities,
devices, infrastructure, or end consumers are affected by the disruption.
An incident including utilities, life support devices, transportation or
telecommunications may lead to extensive property damages.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
76
The economy The financial impact of a cyber-incident ranges from little or minimal to
significant depending upon duration, scale, affected systems, devices
and users. A significant, extended cyber incident affecting most or all of
the County’s operations would likely impact the local and possibly
regional economy for some time. An incident of that magnitude would
likely creates significant, potentially long-term or ongoing challenges to
the County's ability to fund essential services and activities related to
Executive priorities.
Organizations who experiences cyber incidents which leads to data
breaches of sensitive or confidential information can be subjects to legal
fines and financial penalties if, for example, Personal Healthcare
Information (PHI) is lost or exposed or personal identifiable
information including social security numbers, credit card information
or driver’s license information is breached. Organizations who fail to
meet regulatory and contractual obligations due to a cyber-incident may
have significant cost for legal fees, settlements and fines.
The environment The loss of control or availability of the County’s SCADA systems
could potentially impact the environment in the region if, for example,
it causes the release of hazardous materials or improper disposal of
waste water.
Health systems Last years’ cyber incidents including ransomware attacks, distributed
denial of service attacks, system glitches and human error in healthcare
systems all demonstrate that cyber incidents, are capable of triggering
emergencies that impact patient care and public health. If an agency
cannot access its own EHR, patient care could be delayed or hindered.
Furthermore if other critical healthcare related systems and devices can’t
be accessed or data integrity guaranteed patient safety will be at risk.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
Minor cyber incidents which are identified early and are recoverable
may have some impact on daily operations before fully contained but
won’t lead to significant loss of operations. A significant incident
impacting one or more functions and businesses can severely affect the
County’s capability to perform critical operations. However, not all daily
operations are critical. The County has defined its essential services,
which need to become operational within 0-72 hours after disruption to
ensure the organizations capability to maintain critical healthcare, safety
and legal and regulatory needs.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
77
In the event of a cyber-incident which render a non-critical service
unavailable the County may lose revenue, experience loss of
productivity and risks losing data over time.
Responders Emergency responders may not be able to access their mission critical
system, experience delays or performance issues. If data confidentiality
is lost the public may lose their trust in organization and system. If data
integrity is lost it may put patients and first responders at risk. King
County may experience a prolonged incident response if the disruption
is long lasting, complexed and exhausting internal resources.
Infrastructure systems • Energy – Information technology has a direct dependency to
energy. A hazard impacting the power system can therefore have a
secondary effect on the County and lead to a cyber-incident due to
loss of power to devices rendering systems and data unavailable,
loss of power to cooling systems which can cause overheating and
fires in server rooms and data centers. Critical infrastructure have
backup generators. Ensuring fuel delivery during long lasting power
outages for the generators is critical.
A cyber incident impacting King County and no other organization
should not have an effect on the energy system.
• Water/Wastewater – Both water and wastewater facilities and
infrastructure are vulnerable to cyber incidents on their SCADA
systems, which can result in the release of hazardous material and
malfunctioning systems. Such scenarios can result in environmental
impact and create health and safety risks in the region.
• Transportation – Transportation systems are vulnerable to attacks
on their SCADA systems, which may result in trains and vehicles
not operating as planned, airport functionality issues, delays,
cancellations which can result in a secondary economic impact in
the region due to loss of productive if people can’t access public
transportation to and from work.
• Communications – The County relies on different types of
technology based communications methods such as its website,
VOIP and email to conduct its daily operations. A cyber incident
impacting the VOIP or email system would quickly result in a loss
of productivity, a negative consumer experience and could
potentially halter or delay some of the County’s operations.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
Recent cyber-incidents involving government agencies such as the
ransomware attack on the City of Atlanta shows that such large scale
disruption generate National media interest; third party actions;
jeopardizes perceptions of effective operations, Executive priorities, and
public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
78
Regional Risk Profile: Dam Failure
Hazard Description
Dam failure is an uncontrolled, oftentimes, rapid release of water from an impoundment.30 The impact
of failure varies on factors such as impoundment size, steepness, land use downstream of the dam, and
speed of failure. For larger dams, failure is characterized by a flood wave with high velocities. Smaller
dams may only raise water levels slightly and slowly. The result of a dam failure can result in loss of life,
property, infrastructure damage, public health impacts, safe drinking water, and environmental
degradation within the inundation zone, but may have secondary effects on populations outside of the
flooded area.
To better understand the threat locally of dam failure, the planning team worked with our own Dam
Safety Officer who manages the King County Emergency Management’s Dam Safety program. The
program consists of creating response plans for high hazard dams in the community, educating at-risk
populations of the threat of dam failure, and connecting poor condition dams to resources that are
available for repair or removal of the dam. The King County Emergency Management Dam Safety
30 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 10.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
79
Officer works closely with Washington State Department of Ecology’s Dam and Wells Manager to
share information and create a regional effort to heighten dam safety in the County. The information on
dams in the hazard profile are from the State Department of Ecology’s Inventory of Dams.
The Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Office is the regulating body over non-
federal dams that impound at least 10-acre feet of water in the State of Washington. The DSO permits
all new dam construction, inspects all high and significant hazard dams every 5 years, and requires that
all deficiencies be remedied.
Dams serve the County in a variety of ways, agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, flood control,
and recreation. King County has 127 dams located in the County. All but eleven of these dams are
embankment-type dams. Contrary to the popular images of dams like Hoover, these dams are smaller
and are typically made of a mixture of compacted materials such as soil, clay, and rock. A semi-pervious
outer covering with a dense impervious core gives embankment dams their ability to resist seepage and
water pressure. The other dams are made of concrete.
While there are 127 dams in King County, there are 21 other dams situated in neighboring counties that
impact the County if they were to fail. Out of the 147 total dams, 94 threaten human life. A full list of
dams that impact King County can be found at the end of this section.
Hazard Class Number
1A = High – Greater than 300 lives at risk 10
1B = High – 31 to 300 lives at risk 18
1C = High – 7 to 30 lives at risk 42
2* = Significant – 1 to 6 lives at risk 17
2D = Significant – 1 to 6 lives at risk 7
2E = Significant – Environmental or economic impact 3
3 = Low – No lives at risk 50
* Legacy classification, parsing all 2's into 2D's and 2E's 31
Dams fail for a variety of reasons, but the four most common are:32
• Overtopping, 34% - caused by the reservoir reaching capacity and water spilling over the top of
a dam
• Foundation defects, 30% - caused by settlement and slope instability
• Piping and seepage, 20% - when water travels through the dam and causes internal erosion
• Conduits and valves, 10% - Piping of embankment material into the conduit through joints or
cracks
31 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2019. Inventory of Dams
Report.
32 Washington State Department of Ecology – Water Resource Program – Dam Safety Office. Accessed 8/28/2019.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Dams/Emergency-planning-response/Incidents-failures.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
80
33
Dam failure events are infrequent and may coincide with other events, such as earthquakes, landslides,
excessive rainfall, wildfires, lahars and snowmelt. The average age of dams in King County is 47. As
infrastructure ages, increased spending is needed to maintain its integrity.
Following are a selection of events that may cause a dam to fail.
Earthquake34
Earthquakes can result in damage or failure of a dam. Earthquake effects on
dams mainly depend on dam types. For example, the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
damaged 48 dams, causing one embankment type dam to fail35. Safety concerns
for embankment dams subjected to earthquakes involve either the loss of
stability due to a loss of strength of the embankment and foundation materials or
deformations such as slumping, settlement, cracking and planer or rotational
slope failures. Dams are engineered to withstand the Maximum Considered
Earthquake, but older dams may have been engineered before we fully
understood the earthquake risk in the region.
Climate Change36
While dam failure probabilities are low. The chance of flooding associated with
changes of dam operation in response to weather patterns is higher. Dam
designs and operations are developed in part from hydrographs and historical
records. If weather patterns experience significant changes over time due to the
impacts of climate change, the dam design and operations may no longer be
valid for the changed condition. Release rates and impound thresholds may have
33 Washington State Department of Ecology – Water Resource Program – Dam Safety Office. 2018. Status of High and
Significant Hazard Dams. Page 6.
34 KUOW. Seattle’s Faults: Maps that Highlight Our Shaky Ground. Accessed 8/29/19.
http://archive.kuow.org/post/seattles-faults-maps-highlight-our-shaky-ground
35 International Commission on Large Dams. 2013. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Dams. Page 9.
36 Climate Impacts Group - University of Washington. 2018. New Projections of Changing Heavy Precipitation in King
County. Page 40.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
81
to be changed. This would result in increased discharges downstream, thus
increasing the probability and severity of flooding.
Landslides37
The integrity of a dam or reservoir can be affected by a landslide if they fail or
move. Landslides can be triggered by heavy rainfall, snowmelt, reservoir
drawdown, or earthquakes. Landslides can occur upstream in the reservoir, in a
canyon downstream of a dam, or within the abutment of a dam. A landslide into
the reservoir can generate a wave large enough to overtop a dam. Sloshing back
and forth in the reservoir can result in multiple waves overtopping the dam. If
the waves are large enough, there could be downstream consequences can just
from a wave overtopping the dam even if it doesn’t fail. If enough large waves
overtop an embankment dam or a concrete dam with erodible abutments, a
failure could potentially result38. Some dams in the County have been built
abutting a landslide. Often, these are ancient landslides that have stopped
moving or are moving very slowly. However, if a landslide moves far enough, it
can crack the core of an embankment dam, resulting in pathways for internal
erosion to initiate, or disrupting the abutment support of a dam, resulting in
failure.39
Wildfires40
Many of the County’s highest hazard dams lie within wildfire-prone areas.
Wildfires can damage dams, such as Eightmile dam near Leavenworth, directly
by burning the surface of the dam or spillway and damaging other facilities at the
dam. But the main threat from wildfires is how the surrounding watershed
behaves. Heavy rains in a burned area can create:
• More and faster runoff from rainfall events, especially high-intensity
storms.
• Large amounts of sediment, which may reduce storage capacity in a
reservoir.
• Debris flows (mudslides) or downed timber, which may obstruct access
to the dam.
• Debris flows from hill slopes near spillways, which may obstruct
spillways.
• More floating debris (dead trees, branches, sticks) in a reservoir, which
may obstruct spillways41
37 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Geological Portal Information. Accessed 8/28/2019.
https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#natural_hazards
38 U.S Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation. 2015. Risk Management: H-2 Landslide Risks. Page 1.
39 Quartz. 2015. The World’s Biggest Hydro Power Project May Be Causing Giant Landslides in China.
https://qz.com/436880/the-worlds-biggest-hydropower-project-may-be-causing-giant-landslides-in-china/
40 NW News Network. 2019. Eightmile Dam Near Leavenworth Has New Spillway, Is Being Monitored.
https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/post/eightmile-dam-near-leavenworth-has-new-spillway-being-monitored
41 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2015. Focus on Dams
and Wildfires. Page 1.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
82
Additionally, new development, outside of the 100 year flood plain, continues in dam inundation zones,
meaning the population-at-risk from dam failure will continue to rise. Below shows development
outside of the floodplain, but within a dam failure inundation area.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County has high hazard 1A dams that sit on the Green, White, Cedar, and Tolt Rivers.
Additionally, Culmback dam in Snohomish County would flood parts of the Lower Snoqualmie Valley.
The Green, White and Lower Snoqualmie Valleys are the areas of greatest concern for dam failure.
Smaller privately owned and government dams are also a concern, as they may not have access to
funding streams that other larger municipal governments do.
Four dam failure incidents have occurred in King County; they account for all lives lost due to dam
failure in Washington State:42
• December 1918 - Masonry Dam near North Bend had excessive seepage, which caused a
mudflow, destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; no lives lost.
• February 1932 - Eastwick railroad fill failed. A slide caused railroad fill to back up and fail,
destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; 7 lives were lost.
• July 1976 - Increased discharge from Mud Mountain Dam caused a surge in flow killing two
children playing in the White River near Auburn.
• January 1997 - N. Boeing Creek Dam in Shoreline failed due to excessive seepage, poor
hydraulics, and no emergency spillway during a large storm event; no lives were lost.
Other notable dam incidents in King County:
• In January 2009 two depressions were discovered in the right abutment of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers’ Howard Hanson Dam. While repairs were being conducted, there
42 Washington State Department of Ecology - Water Resources Program - Dam Safety Office. 2019. Washington State
Notable Dam Failures and Incidents.
Green River 2009
Green River 2012
100-Year Floodplain
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
83
was a 1 in 3 chance of a 25,000 cfs release down the Green River which would have caused
significant flooding. The USACE was able to fully fix the dam by 2011 before a substantial
flood ensued. King County and local jurisdictions spent $30 million on flood protection that
wasn’t reimbursed by FEMA.43
• In January 2009, Mud Mountain Dam, owned and operated by the USACE, released a higher
than usual flow down the White River during a heavy rain event. As a result, 100 homes were
flooded. Since then, King County Flood Control District, Washington State, and Pierce County
jointly funded a levee setback to reduce the risk of flooding and increase habitat restoration44.
Scenario Drivers
Howard A
Hanson
Howard Hanson, constructed in 1961, is a federally owned and operated dam by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Its primary purpose is to provide flood
control in the winter and fish enhancement in the summer. It dramatically reduced the
amount of flooding that the Green River Valley experienced before its construction.
The right abutment of the dam is the toe of a large landslide. Seepage problems can
occur for dams built into landslides. As mentioned previously, landslide activity can
pose a serious risk to dams. Many mitigation actions have been taken to reduce risk at
the dam, such as a gravel blanket and additional vertical and horizontal drains in the
drainage tunnel have all drastically improved the safety of the dam. If preventative
actions are not taken, internal erosion could fail the dam.
South Fork Tolt
Dam
The South Fork Tolt Dam is owned and operated by the City of Seattle. It is a
hydroelectric dam that also provides drinking water for 30% of 1.3 million people
across the greater Seattle area. South Fork Tolt Dam is a large embankment type dam,
equipped with a morning glory spillway.
The Tolt dam has known landslide hazards below the dam, and above the reservoir. If
a slide were to occur below the dam, the slide may create a dam of its own. Engineers
would need to evaluate what action should be taken. The Tolt Dam would have to
lower the amount of flow downstream why the risk is being assessed. Additionally, if a
slide were to occur in the reservoir, an overtopping wave may be generated that could
cause the dam to fail or send a flood wave downstream.
Mud Mountain
Dam
Mud Mountain Dam is a United States Army Corps of Engineer owned and operated
dam on the White River. Its primary purpose is to provide flood control for nearly
43 Seattle Times. 2011. FEMA won’t pick up $30 million tab to prepare for flooding.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fema-wont-pick-up-30-million-tab-to-prepare-for-flooding/
44 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Water and Land Resource Division. 2018. Lower White
River Countyline Levee Setback Project. https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/wlr/sections-programs/river-
floodplain-section/capital-projects/lower-white-river-countyline-a-street.aspx
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
84
400,000 residents in King and Pierce Counties. Typically, there isn’t a reservoir being
impounded by the dam. During heavy rains or times of snowmelt, engineers will
impound the water and slowly release it downstream to avoid flooding residents.
The White River is a glacial river fed by Mt. Rainier. This leaves the possibility that a
lahar, triggered by an earthquake, volcanic activity, or heavy rains could cause a debris
flow that would block the intake structure on the dam. Such an event would decrease
the storage capacity of the reservoir and cause flows to travel over the spillway. The
loss in flood control capabilities on the White River would leave the Green, White, and
Puyallup River Valleys susceptible to flooding.
Culmback Dam
Situated in Snohomish County, but inundating a portion of the King County’s Lower
Snoqualmie Valley, the Culmback Dam is owned and operated by Snohomish Public
Utility District One. Culmback offers hydroelectric power generation, flood control,
drinking water, and recreational benefits to the region.
Culmback’s morning glory spillway is designed to maintain adequate levels of
freeboard in maximum probable flood events. Changes in hydrology affect the amount
of water a dam would need to convey downstream to keep it from failing. Culmback
Dam’s watershed lies within a densely forested area that slows the speed in which
water enters the reservoir, prevents sediment from entering the reservoir, and prevents
debris flows. A wildfire around the dam would increase the hydrologic strain on the
dam. An increased flow could be compensated with larger releases from the dam, but
would result in flooding of the Town of Sultan. If not enough water could be
discharged, an overtopping scenario at the dam would prove very dangerous.
Lake Tapps
Lake Tapps is a reservoir that sits in Pierce County made up of a system of dikes. If
particular dikes were to fail, they would inundate Auburn and portions of the Green
and White River Valley. Lake Tapps was built by Puget Sound Energy in 1911 and ran
a hydroelectric program until 2004. Lake Tapps was purchased by Cascade Water
Alliance in 2009 who currently owns and operates the reservoir. Its primary function is
to provide drinking water to a group of contracting King County cities and water
districts.
In addition to providing drinking water, Lake Tapps is also a residential community,
many of whom use the Lake for recreational purposes. While residents are instructed
to stay off the dikes, there is no physical security to keep individuals from accessing
the structure. Many dikes have publically accessible roads. Acts of terrorism or
sabotage could provide a serious threat to the integrity of the levees.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
85
Madsen Creek
Flow and Water
Control Pond
Madsen Creek Pond is a King County-owned dam. Constructed in 2008, its primary
purpose is to provide flood control in extreme rainfall events. There is oftentimes no
impoundment behind the dam in summer months when there isn’t consistent rainfall.
Madsen Creek Pond is designed to store runoff from a 100-year 24-hour storm and
still maintain freeboard necessary to prevent flooding downstream. While the dam is
comparatively very young as climate patterns become more unpredictable, Madsen
Creek Pond and other dams may need to be retrofitted to accommodate the change in
probable maximum precipitation. If actions were not taken to adjust to the new
hydrology, chances of failure from an overtopping situation or an uncontrolled release
would become higher.
Cedar Falls
Project Masonry
Dam
The Masonry Dam within the Cedar Falls Project is one of the oldest dams in the
County. It was built in 1914 and currently is owned and operated by the City of Seattle.
The dam serves two purposes, hydroelectric power generation and water supply. The
dam is a concrete gravity dam with an emergency spillway, service spillway, power
tunnel intake, and a low-level outlet.
While there have been fewer failures of concrete dams than earthen dams in general45,
this doesn’t mean that failure is unrealistic. The Masonry dam sits near the Rattlesnake
Mountain Fault. While concrete dams have escaped failure in earthquake scenarios,
minor damage has been observed. The Masonry Dam would need to be assessed for
damage after an earthquake for cracking or other deficiencies in the structure or
supporting structures. If deficiencies are noted, action must be taken to ensure that the
dam doesn’t fail. Earthquakes can also trigger landslides around the dam. Finally, large
earthquakes can devastate communities, created a resource-scarce environment,
potentially making it more difficult to find resources.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Small Local Government
and Privately Owned
Dams
These dams may not have access to funding, or have employees dedicated to
dam safety. This means that there is a higher chance that maintenance and
deficiencies go unmediated. Thus, leading to a higher chance of dam failure.
Lack of Public
Knowledge
Most dams use a “For Official Use Only” designation on their inundation
maps. This means that inundation maps only be shared on a need to know
basis. A lack of public knowledge about dams, their presence in the
community, and their failure potential creates an added challenge in creating
a resilient community.
45 Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 1989. Failure of Concrete Dams. Page 4.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
86
Out of Date or Missing
Emergency Action Plans
High and significant dams are required to have Emergency Action Plans in
Washington State. Missing EAPs and out of date EAPs pose a risk if owners
are unequipped to deal with an emergency at their dam.
Poor and Unsatisfactory
Dams
Any dam that is designated as “poor” or “unsatisfactory” by the Washington
State Dam Safety Office should be brought to a higher standard.
Priority Impact Areas
With all the dams in the county, only a small amount of information can be shared here due to “For
Official Use Only Designation”. Another reason is that there is a lack of in-depth study done on dam
failure impacts to King County. The best and most available estimates for dam failure damages/impacts
are from the potential high release scenario at Howard Hanson Dam in 2009. Examples provided here
relate to those studies.
King County
residents
Dam Name Estimated Impacted
King County Population
(Full Pool Failure)
Estimated Impacted
King County Population
(Sunny Day Failure)*
Mud Mountain 24,480 2,031
Howard Hanson 20,845 6,235
South Fork Tolt 2,291 N/A
Lake Youngs 2,744 2,139
Culmback 145 N/A
Other Dams Combined
(Estimate)**
5,295
N/A
46
*Sunny day failure assumes a regular pool
**Hazard class median reach of range
Populations are based on census data. Areas such as the Green River Valley experience
drastic differences in day time/night time population being an economic hub. The
46 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 27.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
87
number of people that would need to be evacuated could drastically differ from the
numbers identified in the hazard classification. An estimate in 2009 put a 25,000 cfs
release from Howard Hanson triggering an evacuation on the scale of 200,000 to 300,000
people.47
Vulnerable
populations
Dam inundation areas consist of some of the highest Limited English Proficiency
populations in the County. Spanish, Vietnamese, African Languages, and Mandarin are
all spoken in high percentages in dam inundation areas.
Auburn, Kent, and Riverview School District, as well as private schools, have locations
that are vulnerable to dam failure. Riverview school district practices an evacuation of
Carnation Elementary School and Tolt Middle School every September in the City of
Carnation. Both of these schools would need to be evacuated if the South Fork Tolt
Dam failed.
Preliminary studies indicate that there are at least 15 assisted living facilities within dam
inundation areas.48 Evacuation will take longer for this population than most.
A 2019 report indicates that there 11,199 individuals experiencing homelessness in the
County.49 Alert and warning can be especially challenging for this population as they may
not be tied to a geo-coded database.
47 Seattlepi. 2019. 300,000 might have to evacuate if Green River Floods.
https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/300-000-might-have-to-evacuate-if-Green-River-889468.php
48 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 168.
49 All Home. 2019. Seattle/King County Point-In-Time County of Persons Experiencing Homelessness.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
88
Property Dam Name Residential Buildings
Impacted in King County
(Full Pool Failure)
Estimated Impacted in
King County (Sunny Day
Failure)*
Mud Mountain 9,992 829
Howard Hanson 8,508 2,545
South Fork Tolt 935 N/A
Lake Youngs 1,120 873
Culmback 59 N/A
Other Dams Combined
(Estimate)
N/A
N/A
50
*Sunny day failure assumes a regular pool
2009 modelling of a high release from Howard Hanson.
Structures impacted Lower
Green
In 17,000 cfs impact
area
In 25,000 cfs impact
area
Residential 3,486 1,743 1,937
Commercial 16,798 12,245 13,667
Industrial 7,839 6,549 6,644
51
The economy The Green River Valley is an economic powerhouse in the region. Flood damage
prevented in the valley by Howard Hanson Dam since the January 2009 flood is
50 Tetra Tech. 2017. King County Dam Safety Emergency Planning Gap Analysis Report. Page 168.
51 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 166.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
89
estimated at $6 billion alone52. The economic impact of a failure would devastate the
region. With large employers, such as Boeing, and economic centers like the South
Center Mall, in the Valley, a dam failure would leave the local economy crippled.
Commutes, roadways, and rail lines would all be impacted by a high release from
Howard Hanson. Unemployment may follow after areas that experience a dam failure.
2009 Hazus modeling for a high release from the Howard Hanson Dam show impacts:53
• At 17,600 cfs flows from a dam failure: - $1.34 billion in economic losses
• At 19,000 cfs flows from dam failure: - $1.97 billion in economic losses
• At 25,000 cfs flows from dam failure: - $3.75 billion in economic losses
An economic analysis is needed to quantify how much impact a complete failure would
have on the local economy.
The
environment
The primary environmental impact from dam failure is natural and manmade debris from
the inundation. Silt, wood, rocks and gravel, hazardous materials, construction debris,
vehicles, dead animals may be carried by inundation waters to locations that may be
spawning areas for local fish, wetlands for birds and reptiles, or inhabited areas that the
County has invested in heavily. While recovery and impact will vary with each inundation
area.
• At 17,600 cfs – 84,000 tons of debris
• At 19,000 cfs – 208,000 tons of debris
• At 25,000 cfs – 280,000 tons of debris 54
Isolating the potential environmental impact of dam failure is obscured by the likelihood
that another hazard, like an earthquake, may have triggered the dam failure.
Health
systems
MultiCare Auburn Medical Center lies within a dam failure inundation area, but further
study is needed to fully understand the impacts on health systems from dam failure.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, Carnation, Pacific, and Algona all have city halls within
inundation areas. Courts, the County Elections office, King County Regional Justice
Center in Kent where Superior Courts, Adult Detention, and other county agencies are
located within dam failure inundation areas as well.
Responders Kent, Pacific, Seattle, Renton Regional Fire Authority, Valley Regional Fire Authority,
and Eastside Fire and Rescue all have fires stations within dam inundation areas.
52 USACE. Howard A. Hanson Dam. Accessed 8/28/2019. https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Locks-and-Dams/Howard-Hanson-Dam/
53 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 166.
54 FEMA Region X. 2009. HAZUS Analysis for the Green River Valley. Page 169.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
90
Auburn, Algona, Pacific, Kent, Seattle, State Patrol Crime Lab, and King County Sherriff
all have stations in dam failure inundations.
Infrastructure
systems
Infrastructure impacts vary dramatically based on the individual dam and type of failure.
• Energy- While there are dams that generate power in the County, they provide a
relatively small amount of power. The Cedar, Snoqualmie, Twin Falls and, Tolt
projects account for only 126 max MW output55. Power outages may be long
term in areas where there has been a failure.
• Water/Wastewater – Drinking water availability would be drastically impacted by
a failure of the Masonry, Lake Tapps, Lake Youngs, and Howard Hanson Dams.
A failure of one of the many of the reservoirs around the County would also
challenge water systems. The King County South Treatment Plant also lies
within a dam failure inundation area.
• Transportation- Rail lines (commercial and commuter), LINK Light Rail, bus
routes, numerous state highways, and numerous bridges can be impacted by dam
failure.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction
governance
and
capabilities
A dam failure may cause the public to lose confidence in dam owners to manage local
dams. Depending on the success of the response, the public may also lose confidence in
first responders.
Full List of Dams That Impact King County
Dam Name NIDID
Max
Storage
(acre-
feet)
Age
(Years)
Hazar
d
Classif
icatio
n
Lat,Long County
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
WSDOT DETENTION POND
WA007
07 53 11 1A 47.541919,-
122.013939 King
MADSEN CREEK WEST
BASIN DAM
WA018
62 27 11 1A 47.45887,-
122.146561 King
GREEN LAKE RESERVOIR WA002
12 25 109 1A 47.681486,-
122.314571 King
55 Bonneville Power Administration. 2018 Transmission Plan. 2018. Page 77.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
91
HOWARD A HANSON DAM WA002
98 136700 57 1A 47.27797,-
121.78603 King
MASONRY DAM WA002
55 175000 105 1A 47.41221,-
121.75259 King
YOUNGS LAKE OUTLET
DAM
WA002
54 18908 98 1A 47.402843,-
122.124665 King
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM WA003
00 156000 71 1A 47.139329,-
121.931859 King
TOLT RIVER - SOUTH FORK WA001
77 67200 57 1A 47.693158,-
121.689555 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 1 WA004
18 22000 108 1A 47.241348,-
122.184894 Pierce
CULMBACK DAM WA002
08 200000 36 1A 47.974825,-
121.687897
Snohomi
sh
PANTHER LAKE
BALLFIELD DAM
WA017
37 102 25 1B 47.293417,-
122.337225 King
LAKEMONT STORMWATER
POND
WA016
51 30 27 1B 47.557275,-
122.111876 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
REID POND DAM
WA006
80 69 17 1B 47.537831,-
122.027253 King
PANTHER LAKE
DETENTION DAM
WA017
33 339 25 1B 47.295169,-
122.338302 King
PANTHER LK. FIRST AVE.
DETENTION POND
WA017
47 18 19 1B 47.293334,-
122.336049 King
VOLUNTEER PARK
RESERVOIR
WA002
10 69 118 1B 47.629988,-
122.316676 King
HIGH POINT
REDEVLOPMENT
STORMWATER DAM
WA018
69 22 13 1B 47.549375,-
122.371263 King
LAKE FOREST PARK
RESERVOIR
WA002
17 208 57 1B 47.770339,-
122.278611 King
HIRAM M. CHITTENDEN
LOCKS & DAM
WA003
01 458000 103 1B 47.667639,-
122.39853 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
92
BITTER LAKE RESERVOIR WA002
13 31 61 1B 47.7311,-
122.348669 King
RADAR LAKE (OBRIAN)
DAM
WA001
86 68 46 1B 47.730511,-
122.024173 King
JOHNSON POND DAM WA019
99 25 7 1B 47.66287,-
122.050033 King
CRYSTAL LAKE DAM WA001
95 6 88 1B 47.775751,-
122.107419 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 6 WA004
23 43000 108 1B 47.238839,-
122.163482 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 5 WA004
22 40000 108 1B 47.240926,-
122.167596 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 4 WA002
96 58340 108 1B 47.240789,-
122.170259 Pierce
NEWCASTLE VISTA
DEVELOPMENT POND 3
WA019
08 13 13 1B 47.5347,-
122.161437 King
CEDAR WAY STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA014
04 34 1B 47.778205,-
122.289697
Snohomi
sh
REDMOND RIDGE EAST
POND SRN 2 NO.1
WA018
92 52 11 1C 47.697463,-
122.013921 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
SOUTH POND DAM
WA006
88 67 16 1C 47.541353,-
122.000025 King
SPRINGWOOD
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA016
68 50 27 1C 47.361671,-
122.170302 King
TALUS P5 STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA018
44 12 17 1C 47.534487,-
122.06288 King
SNOQ. RIDGE DOUGLAS
AVE. POND D1 DAM
WA018
04 18 21 1C 47.527247,-
121.880358 King
SOUTH 336TH STREET
STORMWATER DAM NO. 1
WA017
54 46 23 1C 47.295591,-
122.317872 King
PETERSON STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA013
37 90 31 1C 47.665661,-
122.021473 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
93
REBA LAKE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA006
18 105 27 1C 47.467583,-
122.317944 King
MILL POND STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM
WA017
16 16 25 1C 47.268797,-
122.219347 King
YELLOW LAKE OUTLET
DIKE
WA005
59 220 33 1C 47.568281,-
122.009515 King
SOUTH RIDGE
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA018
20 25 17 1C 47.545498,-
122.035664 King
TROSSACHS DETENTION
POND PC-3
WA017
87 18 20 1C 47.601051,-
121.975774 King
TROSSACHS DETENTION
POND PC-2
WA018
33 55 17 1C 47.594216,-
121.972376 King
GARRISON CREEK - 98TH
AVENUE DETENTION DAM
WA006
50 8 23 1C 47.394045,-
122.209814 King
MILL CREEK CANYON
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA014
43 18 37 1C 47.383155,-
122.222898 King
UPPER MILL CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA005
82 100 29 1C 47.362116,-
122.201882 King
SOUTH 336TH STREET
STORMWATER DAM NO. 2
WA017
67 49 23 1C 47.29782,-
122.316762 King
WEYERHAUSER-
ENUMCLAW FLOOD
CONTROL DAM
WA006
36 140 26 1C 47.188673,-
121.929254 King
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
NPE POND
WA018
67 36 16 1C 47.555811,-
121.998433 King
REDMOND RIDGE CEDAR
DAM
WA018
02 62 21 1C 47.690857,-
122.04408 King
REDMOND RIDGE DRIVE
EC 4N ROADWAY DAM
WA018
37 148 16 1C 47.67683,-
122.026237 King
PORT OF SEATTLE -
LAGOON #3 EXPANSION
WA006
71 256 18 1C 47.432537,-
122.31332 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
94
ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS
NP2 POND DAM
WA018
58 28 17 1C 47.548397,-
122.000606 King
ICON MATERIALS AUBURN
SEDIMENT POND
WA006
83 200 22 1C 47.271936,-
122.206424 King
BOEING CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA004
83 41 36 1C 47.752036,-
122.360075 King
SNOQUALMIE MILL POND
DAM
WA003
07 396 102 1C 47.529342,-
121.819312 King
WELCOME LAKE DAM WA001
94 260 60 1C 47.724532,-
122.048251 King
TUCK LAKE DAM WA001
80 290 53 1C 47.764918,-
122.03081 King
YOUNGS LAKE NEW INLET
DAM
WA004
15 16836 93 1C 47.420921,-
122.102904 King
MARCEL LAKE DAM WA002
00 350 55 1C 47.692486,-
121.918558 King
LOREENE LAKE DAM WA001
93 86 56 1C 47.31269,-
122.385452 King
MARGARET LAKE DAM WA002
36 1200 86 1C 47.766978,-
121.901433 King
DES MOINES CREEK
REGULATORY DETENTION
FACILITY WEST BERM
WA006
92 160 11 1C 47.428554,-
122.312781 King
DES MOINES CREEK
REGULATORY DETENTION
FACILITY EAST BERM
WA006
93 53 11 1C 47.427034,-
122.311192 King
ICON MATERIALS
SEDIMENT POND 6
WA007
41 1200 4 1C 47.268341,-
122.193221 King
SOUTHWEST GENESEE
STREET DETENTION DAM
WA003
80 52 45 1C 47.564882,-
122.36751 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 11 WA004
27 38000 108 1C 47.238152,-
122.147596 Pierce
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
95
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 3 WA004
21 28000 108 1C 47.249352,-
122.177817 Pierce
KAYAK LAKE DAM WA001
99 230 54 1C 47.782211,-
121.931649
Snohomi
sh
REDMOND RIDGE EAST
POND SRS 1 No. 1
WA019
22 39 6 1C 47.685272,-
122.008553 King
SEATAC AIRPORT POND M WA020
38 27 8 1C 47.464811,-
122.309788 King
SILVER FIRS DETENTION
POND NO. 3
WA017
92 36 21 1C 47.858218,-
122.163964
Snohomi
sh
DES MOINES CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
WA016
49 23 31 2 47.426777,-
122.305916 King
204TH STREET
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN
WA018
19 17 18 2 47.419722,-
122.30375 King
NEWCASTLE RAILROAD
EMBANKMENT DAM
WA006
48 200 119 2 47.522983,-
122.173869 King
QUADRANT EAST CAMPUS
PARCEL 1 DAM
WA018
15 13 19 2 47.311672,-
122.289382 King
SNOQUALMIE FALLS
DIVERSION DAM
WA002
95 818 121 2 47.54149,-
121.837891 King
TOLT RIVER REGULATED
BASIN WEST DAM
WA002
37 35 57 2 47.70383,-
121.791131 King
YOUNGS LAKE CASCADES
DAM
WA002
09 12320 69 2 47.419569,-
122.10876 King
LAKE KITTYPRINCE DAM WA002
01 96 52 2 47.519114,-
121.894508 King
TOLT RIVER REGULATING
BASIN SOUTH DAM
WA002
38 1100 57 2 47.699823,-
121.782893 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 8 WA004
24 34000 108 2 47.239469,-
122.160082 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 9 WA004
25 26000 108 2 47.239893,-
122.157987 Pierce
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
96
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 2B WA004
20 28000 108 2 47.250305,-
122.186157 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO.10 WA004
26 32000 108 2 47.240913,-
122.155031 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 2A WA004
19 20000 108 2 47.249683,-
122.187505 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO.13 WA004
29 10000 108 2 47.190787,-
122.164775 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 12 WA004
28 25000 108 2 47.229823,-
122.14456 Pierce
LAKELAND SOUTH POND
NO.1
WA018
45 12 16 2 47.247554,-
122.226014 Pierce
BOEING CREEK M1
DETENTION DAM
WA017
82 14 21 2D 47.755515,-
122.363653 King
MUTH STORMWATER
POND
WA018
83 37 12 2D 47.411031,-
122.277469 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 2
WA014
85 14 35 2D 47.564342,-
122.019611 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 13
WA006
02 56 29 2D 47.565061,-
122.001408 King
KLAHANIE STORMWATER
DETENTION DAM NO. 1
WA014
84 28 35 2D 47.567181,-
122.024633 King
GARRISON CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA005
77 45 28 2D 47.406392,-
122.203895 King
CONNER JARVIS EAST
POND
WA020
62 14 1 2D 47.573849,-
122.024296 King
SEATAC AIRPORT POND G WA019
72 27 10 2E 47.459923,-
122.321072 King
SEATAC AIRPORT SE POND WA019
01 14 12 2E 47.433611,-
122.300306 King
CEDAR HILLS LANDFILL
CSW POND
WA020
61 53 3 2E 47.457243,-
122.05295 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
97
ECHO LAKE DAM WA012
64 900 84 3 47.50649,-
121.871224 King
FOSTER WATERSKI POND WA005
99 80 29 3 47.635375,-
121.929033 King
FRATT DAM WA017
00 30 63 3 47.688042,-
122.061542 King
BEAR CREEK FAIRWAY
ESTAE DETENTION POND 1
WA014
35 43 18 3 47.724374,-
122.07023 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (133)
WA004
77 90 36 3 47.61931,-
122.14265 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (149)
WA004
76 92 36 3 47.581056,-
122.167666 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (104)
WA014
40 25 36 3 47.581056,-
122.167666 King
I-405 COAL CREEK
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA016
47 40 32 3 47.566555,-
122.180361 King
LINDSLEY DAM WA017
49 13 69 3 47.58387,-
121.980395 King
STAR LAKE CONTROL
WORKS
WA011
76 70 69 3 47.352621,-
122.286532 King
LANDSBURG DIVERSION
DAM
WA015
43 15 84 3 47.375929,-
121.961535 King
TAYLOR DAM WA014
74 10 69 3 47.45545,-
122.025472 King
HIGH WOODLANDS
STORMWATER DETENTION
DAM
WA006
13 29 28 3 47.730592,-
122.194303 King
PRESTON MILL POND WA012
97 10 72 3 47.521821,-
121.92759 King
QUADRANT LAKE NO. 1 WA017
40 113 25 3 47.298433,-
122.315121 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
98
SAWYER LAKE OUTLET
STRUCTURE
WA011
77 1116 67 3 47.335379,-
122.045013 King
REDMOND RESERVOIR
DAM
WA006
18 33 92 3 47.713047,-
122.056138 King
SOUTH 120TH STREET
RESERVOIR
WA013
45 15 43 3 47.494916,-
122.315985 King
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE
GOLF COURSE POND M1
WA006
56 70 22 3 47.538501,-
121.863171 King
TROSSACHS STORMWATER
DETENTION POND
WA017
53 14 24 3 47.584739,-
121.971619 King
BOEING AUBURN
DRAINAGE DITCH
DETENTION DAM
WA016
75 7 25 3 47.291489,-
122.251231 King
QUEENS BOG DAM WA016
33 132 32 3 47.579896,-
122.017182 King
WETZEL FAMILY LLC WA020
15 19 39 3 47.213244,-
122.041401 King
VERDANA POND C WA019
07 11 12 3 47.335,-
122.180556 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (179 NORTH)
WA013
98 26 42 3 47.62593,-
122.146391 King
WILDWOOD POND WA011
64 29 67 3 47.400369,-
122.492826 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DETENTION POND BC-2,
NO.2
WA018
43 12 17 3 47.6959,-
122.031538 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DENTION POND ECC-1B-1
WA018
26 13 15 3 47.682759,-
122.028926 King
REDMOND RIDGE
DETENTION POND ECW 1B1
WA018
32 18 17 3 47.682345,-
122.041503 King
TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT
SOUTH POND
WA007
27 164 8 3 47.420628,-
122.269055 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
99
ALDARRA POND DF-R1 WA018
18 53 18 3 47.587773,-
121.954399 King
CEDAR HILLS REGIONAL
LANDFILL STORMWATER
POND
WA020
60 40 3 3 47.456374,-
122.052682 King
CARNATION WASTE POND
NO. 2
WA013
41 25 38 3 47.667648,-
121.948802 King
WEST CAMPUS DAM NO. 6 WA014
18 18 45 3 47.290947,-
122.325197 King
WEEKS FALLS HYDRO
PROJECT
WA015
84 10 33 3 47.432483,-
121.645884 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (197)
WA004
78 11 36 3 47.63173,-
122.152261 King
MORSE LAKE DAM WA002
56 75000 115 3 47.409604,-
121.725455 King
GREEN RIVER DIVERSION
DAM
WA015
83 10 69 3 47.300919,-
121.840592 King
BELLEVUE DETENTION
POND (165)
WA004
79 12 36 3 47.624358,-
122.171261 King
MARTINDALE LAKE DAM WA010
89 10 59 3 47.378439,-
122.311706 King
RAVENSDALE PIT WA003
39 165 47 3 47.347285,-
121.996183 King
JEAN LAKE DAM WA001
92 12 56 3 47.311983,-
122.380264 King
BLACK DIAMOND
AERATED LAGOON
WA015
61 15 38 3 47.303243,-
122.010413 King
LOUTSIS DAM WA001
87 97 49 3 47.721992,-
121.979478 King
WEYERHAEUSER DAM WA001
91 80 49 3 47.297176,-
122.29882 King
KEEVIES LAKE DAM WA004
98 500 59 3 47.314814,-
122.050117 King
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
100
DEJONG DAIRY WASTE
POND NO 1
WA018
66 16 20 3 47.211114,-
122.096129 King
NORTH CLEAR ZONE
DETENTION DAM
WA013
21 33 46 3 47.468754,-
122.314808 King
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 14 WA004
30 400 108 3 47.196489,-
122.132892 Pierce
TAPPS LAKE DIKE NO. 15 WA004
31 400 108 3 47.194076,-
122.13531 Pierce
56
56 Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Office. 2019. Inventory of Dams Report.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
101
Regional Risk Profile: Earthquake
Hazard Description
Puget Sound has a high risk of experiencing damaging earthquakes. The most common damaging quake
is deep M6+ event, six of which occurred over the past ~100 years. In comparison, the Seattle Fault has
been active three-four times in the past 3000 years and a subduction zone quake occurs approximately
every 200-600 years, with a 10-20% chance it will rupture in the next 50 years, according to the Pacific
Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). With many potentially active faults in the area, Earthquake
impacts can occur anywhere in King County, with earthquake risk focused near faults and in areas with
less stable soils. Washington has the second-highest earthquake risk in the United States, after
California. According to the USGS, there is a 5% chance of a Seattle Fault and a 10-15% chance of a
Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake striking the region by 2055. This equates to an up to 20% chance
of a major earthquake striking King County with potentially catastrophic damages in the next 35 years.57
Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes. Earthquakes may also be accompanied by
a series of foreshocks, or aftershocks in the weeks to months leading up to and following the
earthquake, which can cause additional damage and injury. 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 as the shaking damages or demolishes buildings and other structures. Disruption of
communications, electrical power supplies and gas, sewer and water lines, and transportation routes
should be expected. Earthquakes may cause, or lead to fires, dam failures, landslides, tsunamis, or
releases of hazardous materials, compounding their disastrous effects. An earthquake on the Cascadia
Subduction represents the largest potential risk to the entire Pacific Northwest. However, local sources
such as faults immediately beneath King County may have a much more intense shaking over a shorter
period of time leading to focused damage on the area. The earthquake hazard presents the greatest
regional potential for damages, casualties, economic, and social impacts.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking and
secondary impacts. Ground shaking, or earthquake intensity, measured by the modified Mercalli scale,
depends on distance from the source of the quake, and the soil type. A shallow earthquake that is
relatively small, but nearer to populated areas with a hypocenter closer to the surface, is potentially more
damaging than a much larger earthquake that is farther away. Even when an earthquake is distant,
unconsolidated soils, such as sands, clays, or gravels, found in many floodplains or river valleys, amplify
shaking, leading to more potential damage.
Secondary impacts of earthquake shaking include things like soil liquefaction and landslides.
Liquefaction is a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or
57 LaForge, Gordon. 2019. Critical but Not Urgent: Seattle Prepares for the Big One. Innovations for Successful
Societies, Princeton University.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
102
behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction
generally occurs in soft sedimentary soils. Landslides, or ground failures, are also a common hazard that
can occur with ground shaking, ranging from singular rocks falling down a hill, to mass movements of
land large enough to dam rivers. Landslides falling into bodies of water, can potentially generate
tsunamis, as occurred in the Tacoma Narrows during the 1949 Puget Sound Earthquake.
Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and on the Seattle Fault are also capable of producing
Tsunamis. Tsunamis are a destructive movement of the ocean involving at least one ‘wave’, and strong
currents. Even a relatively ‘small’ tsunami could be devastating to port and maritime infrastructure
within Puget Sound.58 There is evidence that an earthquake on the Seattle Fault that occurred around
900 AD produced a 16-foot tsunami. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
recreated this tsunami using a model.
Soil type impacts ground Shaking. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to amplification and
liquefaction during earthquakes. . Areas with NEHRP soils classes D, E and F are prone to shaking
amplification, and structures in these areas experience greater damage during earthquake shaking. These
also tend to be more susceptible to liquefaction.
NEHRP Soil Classification System
NEHRP SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION MEAN SHEAR
VELOCITY IN METERS
PER SECOND
A Hard Rock 1500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1500
C Dense Soil / Soft Rock 360-760
D Stiff Soil 180-360
E Soft Clay <180
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive
clays, organic soils, soft clays > 36 meters thick)
58 Seattle Office of Emergency Management. Tsunamis and Seiches. Accessed online on 11/12/19 from
https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management/hazards/tsunamis-and-seiches.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
103
King County has a long history of documented earthquake activity. The most recent significant activity
was the Nisqually Earthquake – February 28, 2001. This earthquake, with an epicenter 10 miles
northeast of Olympia in Thurston County (over 40 miles from Seattle), resulted in statewide losses
exceeding $2 billion and injured 700 people, many in King County.59 A slide in King County generated
from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake partially blocked the Cedar River – flooding several homes.
The 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake was centered under Anderson Island in south Puget Sound.
The most extensive damage occurred along the Interstate-5 corridor, where river sediments led to
shaking amplification and liquefaction impacts. Some damage was experienced in 300,000 households,
many from settling foundations. Buildings built prior to 1950 located in the south downtown area and
Pioneer Square in Seattle were the most impacted; structural damage to chimneys, walls, foundations
and nonstructural elements accounted for two-thirds of all damage reported.60 Insured losses were
59 EQE International – Seattle Nisqually Washington Earthquake Feb 28, 2001;
http://www.propertyrisk.com/refcentr/seattleeq.pdf
60 Hazard Mitigation Survey Team Report, Nisqually Earthquake, February 28, 2001, DR -1361-WA, Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
104
recorded as $305M with $2B in losses overall. Of those impacted, 21% had earthquake insurance but
did not meet the deductible. 75% of retail businesses in Seattle that were impacted closed for some
period for cleanup or repairs. The average closure was 4.8 days in Pioneer Square. Of those businesses
impacted, 50% were financially threatened with closure. Harbor Island saw 69 businesses impacted for
an average of $30,900.
The Nisqually Earthquake led to a new emphasis in Washington, and King County especially, on the
importance of retrofitting historic, unreinforced masonry buildings that were the most serious casualties
of the event. The loss of historic buildings is not only costly in financial terms but can alter the social
fabric of a community and fundamentally change its feel and sense of place.
Seattle-Tacoma Earthquake – April 196561 At magnitude 6.5, the earthquake killed seven people and
caused $12.5 Million in damage (1965 dollars). Severe shaking was felt in Seattle and as far as Issaquah
and beyond. Most damage was in the Pioneer Square area and waterfront. Older masonry buildings were
most impacted. Damage patterns experienced in 1949 were repeated. Eight schools were closed for
inspections and repairs; two were severely damaged. Areas along the Duwamish River experienced
severe settling. Three water mains failed in Seattle.
Olympia Earthquake – April 194962 The 7.1 magnitude earthquake was centered along the southern
edge of Puget Sound. Eight people were killed and property damage in Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle
amounted to about $25 Million in 1949 dollars. In Seattle, a sixty-inch water main ruptured, a radio
tower collapsed, power lines and gas lines were broken in over 100 places. Three damaged schools
needed to be demolished and one rebuilt.
Scenario Drivers63
The Juan de Fuca plate is moving northeastward with respect to the North American plate at a rate of 3
to 4 centimeters per year. 64 The boundary where these two plates converge, the Cascadia Subduction
Zone, lies approximately 50 miles offshore and extends nearly 700 miles from Northern Vancouver
Island in British Columbia to northern California. The collision of these two tectonic plates produces
three types of earthquakes: Subduction Zone Earthquakes, Deep/Benioff Zone Earthquakes, and
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes. 65
61 Seattle Earthquake History; http://seattle.about.com/od/localgovernment/a/Seattle -Earthquakes.htm
62 Earthquake History of Washington. 5 Aug. 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic al
King County Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – November 2016 Page 86.
Survey. 5 Oct. 2003 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/washington/history.php
63 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003 http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf
64 Understanding plate motions, USGS; http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html.
65 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003 http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
105
Cascadia Subduction
Zone Earthquakes
A subduction zone earthquake would originate from the Cascadia Subduction
zone off the coast of Washington and Oregon. Such earthquakes typically have
minutes of strong ground shaking and are quickly followed by damaging
tsunamis and numerous large aftershocks. The potential exists for large
earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, up to an earthquake measuring
Magnitude 9 or greater on the Richter scale. This would produce a tsunami all
along the fault line from British Columbia to Mendocino, California. Such an
earthquake would last several minutes and produce catastrophic damage locally
from the earthquake and distantly from the generated tsunami.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
106
Benioff Zone (Deep)
Earthquakes (e.g.
Nisqually Earthquake)
Deep, or Benioff Zone earthquakes are the most frequent damaging earthquakes
occurring within the Puget Sound area. They occur within the Juan De Fuca
plate as it sinks into the mantle. These earthquakes occur, 16 to 60 miles in
depth. Due to their depth, aftershocks are typically not felt in association with
these earthquakes. These earthquakes are caused by mineral changes as the plate
moves deeper into the mantle. Minerals that make up the plates are altered to
denser, more stable forms as temperature and pressure increase. This
compression results in a decrease in the size of the plate, and stresses build up
that pull the plate apart. Deep earthquakes generally last 20 to 30 seconds and
have the potential of reaching 7.5 on the Richter scale. The last major one in the
Puget Sound region was the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake on February
28, 2001.
Shallow (Crustal)
Earthquakes (e.g.
Seattle Fault
Earthquake)
Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the North America plate at depths of
18 miles or fewer. Shallow earthquakes within the North America plate account
for most of the earthquakes in the Puget Sound region, though most are small
and not felt. The potential exists for major shallow earthquakes as well.
Generally, these earthquakes are expected to have magnitudes less than 8 and last
from 20 to 60 seconds. Of the three types of earthquake, the timelines and
recurrence intervals of crustal events are the least understood. Ongoing research
suggests that Magnitude 7 or greater events have occurred on at least eight faults
in the Puget Sound basin. FEMA estimates using HAZUS show that events on
these faults have the potential to cause greater loss of life and property in King
County than any other disaster likely to affect the area. Evidence of a fault
running east-west through south Seattle (the Seattle Fault) suggests that a major
earthquake with a magnitude of 7 or greater affected the Seattle area about 1,100
years ago.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Unreinforced buildings,
especially those built
during pre or low-code
eras (pre 1973)
Brick and masonry buildings that characterize areas like Pioneer Square in
Seattle are extremely susceptible to even minor earthquakes. Unreinforced
masonry buildings are likely to collapse or partially collapse and be a leading
source of fatalities due to falling debris.
Structures, including roads
and bridges, structures,
built on vulnerable soils.
Structures on vulnerable or less stable soils are more likely to buckle or
collapse. High risk areas cover the region, but are especially common in
historic river valleys where sediment has been deposited over time.
Public facilities built to
“life safety” codes that
Public facilities, such as city halls, schools, etc. are not required to be built to
“immediate occupancy” standards. A major earthquake would render many
of these facilities inoperable, leading to difficulties in organizing the recovery
in affected jurisdictions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
107
will be unusable after a
major earthquake
Structures and
populations on or near
steep slopes
Steep slopes greater than 40% grade are likely to fail in an earthquake. This
likelihood increases when the ground is saturated. Buildings on or below
these slopes will be damaged or destroyed in these events.
Dams, especially older,
less regulated dams
Dams are responsible for most of the region’s electricity and are extremely
important to any future recovery. A major event may damage these dams
and require repair before they can resume electricity generation. Total failure
of the major dams is unlikely. In addition to the large dams, however, there
are many lower-priority dams that nevertheless meet the standards of high-
hazard. These dams are scattered throughout King County and may not even
be recognized by the jurisdictions in which they are located. A failure of
some of these dams would likely result in numerous fatalities and the
inundation of property and infrastructure.
Hazardous materials sites,
especially those in aging
warehouses or with
weakened containment
systems
Hazardous materials, or Hazmat, sites dot the region and FEMA has
recognized hazardous materials as a community lifeline due to experiences
dealing with recovery after recent disasters. Hazmat releases are likely to
occur at industrial facilities, on pipelines, and elsewhere around the region.
The cocktail of potential contaminants is likely to threaten the public,
responders, and the environment, and to delay recovery in parts of the
region for years.
Port facilities built on
unstable soils
Ports, are almost always built on fill and other extremely unstable soils.
Major earthquakes will damage and potentially destroy port facilities. Any
seiche or tsunami will also have a greater impact on port facilities than inland
facilities.
Rail systems
Rail systems require tracks to be perfectly aligned and will fail during an
earthquake as the ground shifts and buckles. Landslides may also deposit
material on the tracks. Trains traveling at high speeds during an earthquake
have a significantly greater chance of de-railing, potentially injuring
passengers, or spilling cargo, which may cause additional hazardous material
incidents.
Water and sewer
transmission lines,
especially those built of
cast iron, concrete, or
wood
Water lines throughout the region are currently being replaced by ductile
iron. Nevertheless, most special purpose districts undertaking this work are
decades from completing it. Water systems will likely fail throughout the
region and will be difficult to restore due to limitations in transportation
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
108
capacity. Even systems able to complete conversion to ductile iron will
experience failures, especially in areas of unstable soils.
Populations without the
means to care for
themselves over multiple
weeks, especially those
with Access and
Functional Needs
The response and initial recovery following a catastrophic earthquake will
take weeks. Homebound populations, those requiring medications, the
chronically ill, or others with access and functional needs may need to
sustain themselves for an estimated two weeks in some places.
Populations without
insurance, especially those
without renters insurance
or homeowner insurance
earthquake riders.
According to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, which conducted a
major earthquake insurance study in 2017, residential earthquake coverage in
western Washington is 13.8%. Commercial coverage rates are much higher
than residential, with 43.2% of insurance policies having some sort of
earthquake coverage. A key finding is that, for both residential and
commercial customers, insured properties have a much higher assessed value
than uninsured properties, indicating that it is higher-income people that are,
in general, purchasing earthquake insurance coverage.
Earthquake insurance coverage rates are a good measure of resilience
because insurance is the primary source of disaster recovery funding after an
earthquake. Low levels of insurance coverage have stymied recovery efforts
in major disasters, such as hurricanes, where hazard coverage is not
automatically included in homeowner’s policies.
Populations
communicating in
languages other than
English
Information from responders, notifications, and other information will likely
be communicated predominately in English. Special care will need to be
taken to ensure that non-English speakers have access to relief supplies from
established points of distribution.
Levees, dikes, and other
flood control structures
Flood control structures are usually earthen and built on highly unstable
soils. An earthquake during the winter months when these systems are
running close to capacity could cause major failures and widespread
flooding.
Priority Impact Areas
The severity of an earthquake is different depending on the conditions under which it occurs. Also,
different sectors of the population, economy, or government will have different levels of exposure and
vulnerability that impact their susceptibility to an earthquake. This risk assessment looks at impacts of
various earthquake scenarios to a series of critical sectors. The impact data for physical structures is
generated using the Hazus-MH tool for three different Seattle Fault M7.0 scenarios, a Tacoma Fault M
7.1 scenario, and a Cascadia M9.0 scenario. These scenarios are chosen based on their probability and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
109
potential impact. This earthquake model also includes information on liquefaction potential of soils and
the age of buildings (as an instrument for building code levels).
This assessment considers impacts to physical and human elements of each of 11 impact areas. For
example, for health systems, the locations of key facilities identified by Public Health Seattle – King
County will be assessed against data on high hazard areas. The impacts to first the health system overall,
including employees and existing patients, will also be examined.
The HAZUS scenarios used in this section were generated by the FEMA RiskMAP team for the 2018
King County Risk Report.66
King County
residents
The entire population of King County is potentially exposed to the direct and indirect
impacts from earthquakes. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors,
including the age and construction type of residence, the soil type homes are
constructed on, the proximity to the fault, etc. Business interruption could keep
people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities
could impact populations where no direct damage was experienced.
Hazus estimates there are over 600,000 people living in 250,000 households on
NEHRP Class D or E soils locally. This represents about 30% of the county
population. The population over 65 and the population are the most vulnerable
because of their concentration in areas with Class D and E soils.
Impacts to the population are not restricted to displacement and sheltering. People
may be injured, lose their jobs, schools may be closed from their own damages,
government services may be interrupted, health facilities and care may also be
interrupted or be completely unavailable. Family members may be separated,
including children, institutionalized elderly and the infirm, may be moved to alternate
facilities – and unaccounted for. Deaths of homeless and unidentified people may
require burial before family can claim their remains.
Following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake, the total city population took over 10
years to recover. The population count of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina
still has not recovered to pre-storm levels. King County’s population is extremely
mobile and many are relatively recent arrivals, drawn by the booming economy. A
large earthquake may reverse this growth trend as people lose jobs, face housing
recovery costs without insurance, and seek less hazard-prone areas after the trauma of
a large earthquake.
66 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018. King County Risk Report.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gispublic/AppResources/SEA/RiskMAP/King/KingCounty_RiskReport.pdf
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
110
Vulnerable
populations
Vulnerable populations are more likely to suffer losses during an earthquake and are
likely to take longer to recover after. Factors influencing likelihood of damage include
living in higher hazard areas, living in older buildings, being less likely to have
emergency supplies, and having a higher rate of persons with disabilities. Slower
recovery is exacerbated by poorer populations likelihood of not having access to
institutions leading recovery, not having insurance, not having a stable job, wealth, or
savings, being more likely to be renters who are ineligible for many federal recovery
programs, and having a lower-level of education on average, making it more difficult
to find a new job and to navigate the complex post-disaster system.
In many catastrophic disasters, most notably Hurricane Katrina, poor communities
may never recover.
Property Lack of damage to structures built since the 1949 and 1965 earthquakes have
demonstrated the value of building standards that resist earthquake damages.
Overwhelmingly, damages in the Nisqually Earthquake of 2001 were to unreinforced
masonry and buildings built before the 1949 earthquake. This held equally true for
damages to roads and bridges. The FEMA project team completed an analysis to
identify how many buildings were built to specific building codes. In the table below,
“pre-code” refers to buildings built before 1950, low-code is 1951-1974, moderate is
1975-2003, and high is after 2003.
Countywide, nearly 50% of buildings were built to pre or low code standards. This
level of vulnerability is significant, especially for more intense earthquakes, such as the
Seattle Fault M7.2.
The economy King County alone contributes around 50% of Washington’s gross domestic product.
The county has a diverse economy, which has made it especially resilient to other
forms of disruption but is heavily dependent on a high degree of global
interconnectedness. Losses to lifeline infrastructure, especially port facilities,
communications hubs, and major highway corridors would be crippling if the loss was
total and links could not be quickly restored. Some of western Washington’s key
industries, such as Amazon and Microsoft, may be insulated somewhat from damage
due to the highly global nature of their work and redundancy in their systems, while
others such as Boeing would be severely impacted as rail and highway routes
necessary for the transport of materials is restored. I-5, for example, suffers from
limited redundancy and carries over 233,000 vehicles through Seattle, a number that
has been steadily growing.
Economic risk from a major earthquake is multi-faceted. Economic impacts from an
earthquake include immediate loss of facilities and inventories, ongoing loss of
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
111
employees and customers, and loss of businesses. Ongoing impacts will depend on
the speed of infrastructure restoration, levels of insurance coverage, international
economic conditions, and the ability of jurisdictions to develop and implement a long-
term recovery strategy.
The
environment
Impacts to the environment from an earthquake include the creation and disposal of
large quantities of debris, releases of hazardous materials, the disruption of
environmental conservation programs, and the relaxing of environmental programs
during the cleanup and recovery. The greatest potential for environmental damage is
from hazardous materials releases as fuel and waste pipelines rupture, underground
fuel storage tanks fail, trains, including oil trains, may derail, port facilities are
damaged by any tsunami or seiche, and other chemicals, including household items,
are spilled. The multi-source nature of materials releases, the scale of potential
releases, and the lack of resources for cleanup all complicate the scenario.
While most common after rain and wind event hazards (approximately 75% of all
disaster-triggered releases), hazmat releases after earthquakes are responsible for large
releases over a wide area.67 Earthquake-triggered hazmat releases have included
hundreds of gas line ruptures and pipeline breaks, and releases of ammonia, chlorine,
and sulfuric acid during the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes.68
67 Sengul et al, 2012. Analysis of Hazardous Materials Releases Due to Natural Hazards in the United States.
68 Young, Stacy; Balluz, Lina; and Malilay, Josephine, Natural and Technologic Hazardous Material Releases During and After
Natural Disasters: A Review (2004). Public Health Resources. 90.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
112
Health systems Health system impacts from a
major disaster include
disruptions to emergency
services, community health
clinics, pharmacies, and
hospitals. While new hospitals
are required to meet criteria for
seismic resilience and may
engage in supply-chain and
patient evacuation planning,
much of the rest of the network
is likely to be shut down after a
disaster. This is an especially
high threat to populations
needing regular medical services,
such as kidney dialysis and
insulin injections (which require
refrigeration). In Hurricane
Maria in 2017, Puerto Rico was
left without power for months
and the majority of fatalities
recorded due to the storm were from the elevated death rate among medically-fragile
populations.
In order to function, hospitals require significant infrastructure inputs, including
power and water that are likely to be disrupted after an earthquake. Backup services
are available; however, may be insufficient to meet the need if infrastructure recovery
takes too long.
Health system impacts therefore include large-scale disruptions to supply chains,
disruptions to ongoing care regimens for certain medically-vulnerable populations,
disruption of community care networks of pharmacies and local clinics, loss of trained
staff, and potential damage to hospitals or loss of hospital functionality due to
infrastructure damage.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
113
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Any damaging earthquake has the potential to impact delivery of essential government
services in the days, weeks, months, and even years following the earthquake. The
damages to infrastructure and residential or business locations may curtail or even
prevent government employees from reaching their work locations or may prevent
services from reaching populations in need scattered around the county. Even after
initial short term repairs have been made, the impact on the taxable value of
properties in the county may cause a revenue shortfall that reduces available services
from budgetary impacts.
Collection of available tax
revenue, the revaluation
process (including
documentation), and appeals
process might produce a
further burden on already
stretched government
obligations.
Earthquakes have the
possibility of damaging any
fixed facility at which
services are provided. This
may include: adult and
juvenile detention facilities,
waste water treatment
facilities, solid waste disposal
systems and facilities, the
court system, health and
medical institutions and
clinics, fire and police
stations or equipment,
public transportation, schools, and libraries.
Responders First responders experience personal and professional impacts from an earthquake.
Since responders are also local residents, they will be personally impacted by the
disaster. Professionally, emergency services will be called upon to help with life safety
operations while also seeking to restore day-to-day services.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
114
Infrastructure
systems
Energy: Dams are the primary source of electricity generation for the region and may
be impacted by a major earthquake, even if failure is relatively unlikely. Pipelines cross
the region carrying fuel and are susceptible to earthquakes. Since Washington is home
to the Northwest’s only refineries, damage to this conveyance system will have far
reaching, regional consequences. A major concern for maintaining power in facilities
while the power grid is down after an earthquake is fuel distribution. With
transportation networks seriously impacted, it will be difficult to ensure a supply of
fuel is distributed to hospitals, public facilities, and communications centers. Without
this fuel, systems are likely to fail after a few days of operation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
115
Water/Wastewater: Water and
wastewater systems are among
the most vulnerable to an
earthquake of all lifeline
infrastructure. Pipelines,
especially those over NEHRP
class D, E, and F soils, are
vulnerable to rupture. King
County maintains a wastewater
treatment system that is
connected to dozens of smaller
systems and operates multiple
water treatment plants. There
are also many separate water
systems that operate their own
conveyance systems and
reservoirs.
Transportation: Transportation lifelines are
both state and local responsibility.
According to a Regional Resiliency
Assessment Program (RRAP) report
published by DHS,
WSDOT has operated a seismic retrofit
program since 1991 and has been steadily
retrofitting bridges through a three-stage
process of stabilizing the bridge
superstructure, strengthening single-
column bridge supports, and reinforcing
multi-column piers. In response to the
2012 Resilient Washington State report,
WSDOT began a program to completely
retrofit three identified lifeline routes for a
total cost in excess of $1B (2015 dollars).
As of 2019, there are 17 state-responsibility
bridges in King County that are in poor condition.
Bridge Seismic Lifeline Routes (green) (WSDOT, 2015)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
116
King County has 177 bridges in its bridge program. At least every two years, those
bridges are inspected and recommendations are made for their repair or replacement.
Between 2006 and 2016, 32 bridges were replaced and many more repaired. In 2008,
the bridge program concluded a 14-year seismic retrofit, improving 115 bridges for
$22 million. This retrofitting has substantially improved the survivability (likelihood of
collapse) of bridges in the King County inventory.
One category of bridges is fracture critical truss bridges. The average age of these
bridges in unincorporated King County is 42 years. Of the 11 bridges in this group,
the Miller River Bridge was closed from damages in the January 2011 flood event and
the Alvord “T” was closed June 2013. The Stossel Bridge is the lowest rated of those
remaining in the inventory. Each carries thousands of vehicles daily.
Bridges, however, are only part of the transportation puzzle. Bridge approaches, and
pavement crossing unstable soils, are major threats. The WSDOT Seismic Lifeline
route discussed above is only considering bridges, not pavement or approaches.
Railways are another highly-vulnerable piece of transportation infrastructure. Tracks
can become misaligned and require repair before train travel is possible. Even in the
relatively small 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, rail travel was disrupted for several days.
Port facilities are seriously threatened by a major earthquake due to liquefaction
potential of port areas and tsunami threats. It is likely a major earthquake would
completely destroy port facilities, requiring years of investment to completely recover.
As with the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake, port operations may never again reach pre-
disaster levels.
Airports are also vulnerable to earthquakes. In the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, the air
traffic control tower at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was damaged, drastically
reducing takeoff and landing capacity. Runway damage is also common as the ground
shifts and would require repair before large jets could land. While the region has a
number of airports, many of them will also be critical facilities for disaster response,
medical patient evacuation, and food and fuel deliveries.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
117
Communications: While the public sector maintains critical radio communications
networks, the networks on which most residents depend is privately owned. While
cell towers are equipped with backup generators, these generators may only have
enough fuel for a few days of continuous operation.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance and
capabilities
Disasters of the magnitude we can expect from a damaging earthquake have the
potential to shake public confidence in government’s ability to maintain law and
order, provide essential services, repair or replace needed infrastructure for
employment, processing of building permits and inspections, clearing of debris and
other needs. Restoration efforts may well take longer than the public is willing to
accept. Amendments to zoning and building standards may not be embraced by those
seeking to rebuild. If rapid restoration is not possible, the area may lose employers
and the population may relocate to other areas of the country in search of
employment.
Earthquake hazards specifically have been the subject of significant reporting in
recent years. Articles in the Seattle Times, the New Yorker, and on local television
have argued that the Pacific Northwest is unprepared for the level of destruction
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
118
expected following a Cascadia Subduction Zone 9.0 event.69 These articles have led to
both stepped-up state and local action on earthquake preparedness and to more
public awareness.
69 Schulz, Kathryn, “The Really Big One,” The New Yorker (July 20, 2015).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
119
Re gional Risk Profile: Flood
Hazard Description
Flooding is King County’s most persistent and recurrent natural hazard. Flooding affects tens of
thousands of families and properties owners in communities across the county, with life safety,
economic, and workplace impacts on tens of thousands more. The communities within King County
take flooding seriously; the King County Flood Control District was established in 2007 to regionally
manage flood hazards and reduce risk, in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources and
Parks’ River and Floodplain Management Section. The King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
drives much of the work that both the District and King County do to reduce flood risk and manage
flood-related hazards.
Flooding is the inundation of normally dry areas by overflowing rivers, increased coastal waves, or other
accumulation of surface waters. A number of conditions can cause flooding from too much rainfall in a
river’s watershed to sustained offshore wind driving a high tide inland, but flooding can also be caused
by events such as liquefaction of levees during an earthquake that release water the levees hold back.
Other causes of flooding include dam failure, landscape changes after wildfires that exacerbate flooding,
rapid snowmelt, channel migration, and debris in streams causing water to backup.
Typically, King County sees
at least minor flooding ever
year in the fall and winter
and big events are often
driven by atmospheric river
where moisture is picked up
from the Pacific Ocean and
brought by the jet stream to
drop as prolonged heavy
precipitation in western
Washington.
A variety of factors affect
how flooding occurs and its
severity. One main factor for
riverine flooding is the
“hydrology,” which includes
how much rain falls, how fast it falls, how fast it reaches the stream, and the amount of water already in
the stream. The second main factor for riverine flooding is the “hydraulics” of the watershed, which
includes characteristics like the topography, stream channel dynamics, and the overall slope of areas of
the watershed.
Figure 2. Flooding along the Snoqualmie River in 2015
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
120
Flooding is a natural phenomenon and many ecosystems thrive because of the natural floodplain
functions that rivers and coastlines provide. Flooding is considered a “problem” when humans
construct buildings and infrastructure in the path of floodwater. The many aspects of natural floodplain
functions help reduce impacts, slow floodwaters down, and preserve important habitat for endangered
species.
Figure 3. Map showing mapped 1% annual chance floodplains and floodways. Note that Lake Washington does not have
an identified floodplain because its levels are controlled by the US Army Corps of Engineers operated Chittenden Locks.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Flooding, no matter the source, causes widespread and long-lasting damage. The force of moving
floodwaters can tear homes from their foundations, sweep cars off the road, and destroy public
infrastructure. Houses and businesses damaged by flooding can take many months to repair and are
often unsuitable to live in during the repairs. Certain types of flooding can leave buildings inundated for
several days, which can further worsen property damage. Flood-damaged buildings can pose health risks
including mold, contaminated food and drinking water, and mental health stresses from the traumatic
experience.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
121
The velocity, depth, and amount of floodwaters impact how dangerous riverine flooding can be. A
floodplain where the velocity is more than 3 feet per second and the depth is more than 3 feet is an area
dangerous for people to be living or working since those flood conditions can be fatal to someone
walking through floodwaters. King County code, for example, prohibits buildings in unincorporated
areas to be built in fast-flowing and deep floodplains. Rivers in King County also carry substantial
debris, from fallen trees to boulders and sediment, and debris impacts can add to the severity of
flooding.
Rivers are dynamic systems and can
shift significantly during high flow
events or gradually through erosion of
streambanks. This risk is called
“channel migration hazards,” and is a
prevalent feature in northwest river
systems. The scale of channel
migration depends on the severity of
the high flow event, geology of the
banks and streambed, and
characteristics of the surrounding
land. King County regularly maps
channel migration zones and has
applicable development standards for
proposals within these zones.
In coastal floodplains, wave action is the most dangerous aspect of flooding. Buildings are required to
be specially designed to withstand powerful wave actions and can only be built on open foundation
systems, like piers or posts.
King County covers six large drainage basins and costal flood hazard areas.
1. The South Fork Skykomish River basin lies primarily in the northeast portion of King County
and flows into neighboring Snohomish County. The basin drains 234 square miles of
mountainous terrain within King County and includes major tributaries such as the Foss, Tye,
Miller, and Beckler Rivers. The cities of Skykomish, Baring, and Gold Bar as well as many
unincorporated area neighborhoods are located near or on the banks of the rivers and
frequently experience impacts from flooding. The basin features steep slopes in the upper
portion, so significant runoff can cause major flooding relatively quickly. The rivers in the basin
are also very prone to channel migration and it is a significant hazard that communities are
focused on.
2. The Snoqualmie River basin drains much of the northeast and north-central part of King
County and is typically divided into two areas: the Upper Snoqualmie and the Lower
Snoqualmie, above and below Snoqualmie Falls, respectively. The basin also encompasses
tributaries such as the Tolt River, the Raging River, Tokul Creek, Griffin Creek, Harris Creek,
Patterson Creek, among others. The Upper Snoqualmie River and some of the major tributaries
are characterized by steep gradient headwater systems and some lower gradient floodplains near
the incorporated communities of North Bend and Snoqualmie. The Lower Snoqualmie River
Figure 4. House destroyed due to channel migration along the Raging River.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
122
features wide floodplains along the low gradient channel. The cities of Carnation and Duvall
and the unincorporated community of Fall City all lie within the broad Lower Snoqualmie
Valley.
3. The Sammamish River basin originates at Lake Sammamish and drains a 240 square mile
watershed, including the tributaries of Bear, Little Bear, North, and Swamp Creek basins. The
river has been channelized since the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and is
partially regulated by a weird outlet downstream of the mouth of the lake, which reduces
frequency and severity of flooding.
4. The Cedar River basin stretches from the Cascade Mountains to Lake Washington, where the
Cedar River terminates. The basin has been heavily altered from its natural condition, with
major projects constructed including Masonry Dam and the Landsburg Diversion, both to serve
as water supply infrastructure. Along the Cedar River are many unincorporated community
neighborhoods as well as cities like Maple Valley and Renton. Naturally-occurring large wood is
a prevalent hazard in the basin.
5. The Green River originates in the Cascade Mountains at an elevation of 4,500 feet and flows
through many cities including Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and Seattle. The basin is divided
into four major sub-basins: the upper watershed above the Howard Hanson Dam, the middle
Green below the dam and upstream of Auburn, the lower Green that flows through the
incorporated cities, and the Duwamish estuary. The Green River basin features many large
structural elements including Howard Hanson Dam, which provides flood control, and large
levee and revetment systems on the lower Green River.
6. The White River originates in glaciers on the northeast face of Mount Rainier. The White River
drains an area of about 490 square miles, approximately one third of which lies within King
County. Major tributaries join the White River along its path like the Greenwater River and
Boise Creek. Over one hundred years ago, the White River was diverted to flow into the
Puyallup River in Pierce County. Mud Mountain Dam is a major flood control dam that has a
significant effect on reducing flooding in the basin. Additionally, water is diverted from the river
for hydropower generation near Lake Tapps. Along the river are a number of small
unincorporated neighborhoods in addition to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Reservation and
portions of the city of Auburn.
7. Coastal flood hazard areas pose potential risks to approximately 100 miles of shoreline, about
half of which is on Vashon Island in unincorporated King County and the other half is the
incorporated shoreline through the cities of Shoreline, Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, and Federal
Way. Storm surge and wave action are significant flood hazards facing development along
shorelines. Coastal erosion also is a prevalent hazard, including along the steep bluff areas
around the shoreline in King County. Many miles of shoreline are variably armored by
bulkheads and other structures. Coastal flooding will be exacerbated by sea level rise and other
impacts of climate change.
Flooding is a prevalent threat during the fall and winter months due to atmospheric rivers, heavy rain,
and king tides. Major floods occur on average every two to five years. Major river flooding has typically
not caused fatalities, but rather significant property damage. Flooding along multiple rivers in 2006 and
2009 were the most recent major floods to cause many millions of dollars in damage. Flooding in 1990
is considered the largest flood of record for most of the county except for the Lower Snoqualmie and
Tolt Rivers. There have been 28 flooding events since 1965 that have resulted in federal disaster
declarations. At least minor flooding occurs every winter. Climate change is likely to have a significant
effect in changing the patterns of flooding in the river basins.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
123
Scenario Drivers
Most types of flooding caused by extreme weather are cyclical and are measured by their probability of
occurrence in a given year based on the factors that drive flooding. The larger a flood event, the less
likely it is to happen in a year. A flood with a 10% chance of occurring in a year is sometimes called a
“10-year flood,” and that flood event will have less river flow and likely fewer impacts than a 1% annual
chance flood event, or a “100-year flood.” These flood events can be modeled and maps created to
show their extents.
The 1% annual chance flood, or 100-year flood, is the most important scenario because floodplain
regulations and federal flood insurance are based on this flood event. This flood event represents the
mapped floodplain on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and forms the basis for community
regulations for participating communities in the National Flood Insurance Program. In King County
communities, all new or substantially improved buildings must be constructed with their lowest floor at
least one foot higher than the expected elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
While the 1% annual chance flood is scenario most often discussed, the 10%, 2%, and 0.2% annual
chance floods are often used for planning and certain regulatory purposes. The extents of the flood
events are not consistently mapped throughout the county, but engineering data in flood models can be
used in project planning or regulatory compliance.
Typically the recurrence interval floods are driven by cyclical natural factors like atmospheric rivers
bringing heavy rain or severe winter storms and king tides. Other factors can drive flooding scenarios in
different ways. For example, levee or dam failures may happen due to problems caused by inadequate
maintenance. Flooding damage from earthquakes will likely only be seen if an earthquake damages a
levee, for example, during times of high water.
King County has a long-established Flood Warning Program that has been monitoring river systems for
over 50 years. The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks’ River and Floodplain
Management Section operates a Flood Warning Center that opens 24 hours a day when flooding occurs
on any of the river systems with gages. For the Flood Warning Program, the rivers are measured by a
“flood phase” system based on real-time flow information. When a river reaches flood phase 2, the
Center opens, coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies, and accepts calls from the public
requesting information about flooding. When a river reaches flood phase 3, patrol teams are sent out to
monitor flood protection facilities and any potential flooding impacts. When a river reaches flood phase
4, additional staff are brought in to the Flood Warning Center, sent on flood patrols, and begin to
collect damage information in case of a disaster declaration.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
124
Heavy rain and
atmospheric rivers
Most riverine and urban flooding is caused by heavy rain and atmospheric
rivers that drive significant weather systems into the Pacific Northwest.
Intense rainfall can overwhelm rivers’ ability to carry flows in their banks
and cause inundation of the adjacent floodplains. These factors not only
drive riverine flooding, but also urban flooding issues that can overwhelm
local stormwater infrastructure and can cause flood damage.
Severe winter storm, storm
surge, king tides
Severe winter storms that have strong winds combined with king tides can
cause significant coastal flooding, as seen in the 1982 king tide event that
battered much of the shoreline in King County. Intense coastal storms and
high tides can cause damage to coastal properties and damage infrastructure
like roads and ferry docks.
Sea level rise
As sea level rises in Puget Sound, the stillwater elevation level, or the water
level without effect of waves, rises and pushes more water inland during
times of severe storms. While the actual increase in flood risk will differ
based on the localized geography and wind patterns, sea level rise is certain
to worsen flooding along the coastlines in King County.
Channel migration Rivers natural erode banks and soils due to the energy of moving water.
This erosion causes rivers to migrate or move laterally across a floodplain.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
125
A channel can also move abruptly over a large distance in a single flood
event. This can threaten development located in channel migration zones,
some of which are mapped.
Dam failure and
overtopping
If dams fail, the water held back will rush out quickly, potentially causing
catastrophic flooding downstream. Dams both large and small can pose
significant impacts. The potential for Howard Hanson Dam’s failure in
2009 brought to light the incredible flooding, loss of life, and property
damage that could happen if dams fail. Smaller structures that might be in a
neighborhood can also lead to deaths and significant property damage.
Dam failure can be caused by too much water for a structure to handle or
by lack of maintenance that causes the dam to fail.
Levee failure and
overtopping
Levees act as flood protection facilities, but only offer protection to a
certain recurrence interval. They also are manmade earthen structures that
require maintenance. Flooding can exceed a levee system’s capacity or flaws
in the structure can cause it to fail, and both would cause rapid inundation
behind the levee. Water can seep through levees and cause weaknesses that
lead to collapse.
Landslide and mudflow
Landslides can rapidly fill in rivers, causing a blockage in the river and
immediate overflowing. This threat is particularly present on the Cedar
River. Landslides can also add significant material to a river, causing a
mudflow and rapid damage to property, similar to the Oso Landslide event
in 2014 in Snohomish County.
Earthquake
Earthen levee systems are prone to liquefaction in an earthquake, which can
cause major failure of the levee structures. If floodwaters are being held
back at the time of an earthquake, the levees can fail and flooding could
occur very quickly.
Volcanic eruption
In the event that Mt. Rainier erupts, lahars can fill river valleys and
drastically change the course of rivers, streams, and shorelines. The amount
of materials brought downstream in a lahar would affect the severity of
impacts in future flooding.
Tsunami
Tsunamis are powerful waves that are caused by an earthquake or
displacement of water from an underwater land feature collapse. Specific
scenarios are outlined in the Tsunami and Seiche Risk Assessment. A
tsunami that affects King County would cause significant wave action and
likely major damage to properties on the coast.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
126
Humanmade watershed
changes
One major factor in understanding flood risk is the underlying land that
floodwaters flow over. Harder and more impervious surfaces carry
floodwater faster, so as humans continue to build buildings, roads,
sidewalks, and other impervious features, floodwaters travel faster to
streams, which can increase the severity of flooding.
Climate change
While climate change has an effect and influence on many of the factors
already identified, it is a specific scenario driver because of the potential to
change flooding in King County. Research is currently ongoing to better
analyze, quantify, and understand the effect of certain emissions scenarios
that could drive flooding in multiple ways. King County is likely to
experience higher intensity rainfall events, which have the potential to cause
more impactful flooding.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Families living in
floodprone areas
Families with limited budgets are the top concern for flooding. Because
flood damage can be very expensive and disruptive, families have a difficult
time recovering from the effects of flooding. Without flood insurance,
families must take money from savings; and even with flood insurance, flood
damaged homes may not be livable for many months. Renters are
particularly vulnerable since they often are lower income and do not have
flood insurance. Additionally, families that don’t speak English as a primary
language can be more vulnerable to flooding because most flood warning
systems are in English and much of the flood insurance, floodplain
regulations, and any mitigation programs are made up of materials in
English.
Major roads and sole-
access roads
The many bridges, major roads, cross-valley roads, and sole-access
neighborhood roads that cross floodplains are a top priority during flooding.
Many people in Duvall, Carnation, and other communities in the Snoqualmie
valley can be entirely cut off during major flooding since SR 203 and the
cross-valley roads are often underwater. During high tide flooding events on
Vashon Island, many coastal roads are underwater as well and can limit
access via Vashon Highway.
Critical facilities
Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, hazardous materials storage facilities, and
other critical facilities operations are threatened during flooding. Schools will
be inaccessible and hospital operations and access routes vulnerable.
Facilities like nursing homes house populations that cannot easily leave
floodprone areas. And hazardous waste, sewage, or animal waste storage
facilities threaten water quality and pose health risks during flooding.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
127
Farms
There are many agricultural operations in King County’s floodplains
including major production areas in the Snoqualmie Valley, Green River
Valley, Sammamish River Valley, and parts of the Enumclaw Plateau.
Flooding can particularly affect harvest time in October and November as
well as making it difficult to start planting in the spring. Farms with livestock
faced significant losses in the 1990 floods, but now many dairy or other
livestock operations have farm pads that offer refuge for animals in times of
flooding.
Linear infrastructure
Linear infrastructure such as water and natural gas pipelines, sewage systems,
and utility transmission lines cross rivers, streams, and floodplains.
Significant water pipelines take water from protected watersheds down to
Seattle, Renton, and other cities and often are threatened by flooding. A
major capital project completed in 2019 added flood protection for the Tolt
Pipeline, which is part of Seattle’s water supply. Additionally, as sea levels
rise and worsen coastal flooding,
Flood protection facilities
Levees and revetments are part of the flood protection facility systems in
King County. During flood events, levees and revetments are tested by the
force of floodwater. Revetments are intended to protect against channel
migration, but if the flood is too large, they can fail and rivers can avulse.
Levees similarly are put under serious pressure during flood events and a
number of issues from seepage to sloughing can undermine levees and cause
them to fail.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Flooding can affect anyone who lives in or near floodplains. Most flood hazards are
mapped and families living in these mapped 1% annual chance floodplains can expect at
least a 26% chance of seeing floodwaters over 30 years, the length of a typical mortgage.
Flooding can threaten lives, particular in areas where flooding can happen quickly and
with little warning, in addition to those driving on flooded roads. Most deaths occur from
people driving through floodwaters and being swept away in their cars.
Flooding also causes significant property damage and, on average, one foot of water in an
average size home can cause over $50,000 in damage. Without flood insurance, this level
of damage can overwhelm a family’s finances. And those without many financial
resources will be severely impacted by flood damage to their home and/or belongings.
Flooding also affects those who work in floodplains or commute through them. Many
farmworkers are employed on farms in the Snoqualmie or Sammamish Valleys and when
flooding inundates or ruins crops, farmworkers can find themselves without jobs.
Businesses in floodplains also will shut down during flooding, particularly if buildings and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
128
access roads are damaged. After the 1993 Midwest Flooding, FEMA found that over 40%
of small businesses don’t reopen after being flooded.
Vulnerable
populations
Flooding is a complicated hazard to understand and accessing flood warning, flood
insurance, and other information often requires command of English, understanding of
government bureaucracy, and access to financial resources. Populations that don’t speak
English, don’t have access to government resources, and those that cannot afford or
don’t have flood insurance are particularly vulnerable to the long-term impacts of
flooding.
Renters can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of flooding. Families that rent make
up over 50% of the households in the floodplain, whereas they make up approximately
37% of households in the entire County. Renters are more often vulnerable because
they’re far less likely to have a flood insurance policy. Out of the many thousands of
families that rent, there are less than 300 renters flood insurance policies, according to
data from FEMA, and some of those may be business properties that the data cannot
distinguish. Renters often have less wealth or savings to draw from to pay for uninsured
losses.
Property Flooding particularly impacts property and often causes many millions of dollars in
property damage in major flooding events. Even a small amount of water inside a
building can cause significant property damage and leave building owners with large
repair bills. For families, damage to homes may mean difficult financial decisions,
displacement for weeks, and lost belongings. For business owners, flood damage may
mean lost economic output from shutdowns, destroyed inventory, and inability to pay
employees.
Throughout King County, there is at least $5 billion of building value in floodplains.
Federal flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program is the primary
way building owners financially protect their property in floodprone areas. As of June
2019, flood insurance policies cover over $2 billion worth of property throughout King
County. Many larger commercial or industrial facilities are insured through private
contracts, the value of which is not available to government agencies.
Community Repetitive Loss Properties
Auburn 0
Bellevue 3
Burien 6
Carnation 0
Duvall 2
Issaquah 14
Kent 2
King County 108
Kirkland 1
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
129
Mercer
Island 1
North Bend 4
Redmond 0
Renton 0
Skykomish 4
Snoqualmie 134
Woodinville 2
Most of these structures are residential. King County attempted to assess the use type of
these properties; however, none of the available data sources on RL/SRL properties from
the CRS or FEMA contained use types. Even the property-specific forms required to
evaluate under CRS did not include use.
The economy In 2007, an economic study was conducted to understanding the economic impact of
flooding. The study found that 6% of the region’s jobs are located in the floodplain and
nearly 7% of the county’s wages and salaries are generated in the floodplain ($3.7 billion).
20% of the county’s manufacturing employment and 30% of the county’s aerospace
employment are found in floodplains. A major flood that would shut-down economic
activity in floodplains would result in at least $46 million per day in lost economic output.
Flooding will affect certain industries like agriculture, aerospace, manufacturing, and
distribution more heavily because of their presence and reliance on floodplain locations.
In the lower Snoqualmie valley, there are nearly 200 farms that produce a wide range of
products from dairy to herbs and row crop vegetables. The Sammamish River valley
supports a number of wineries and other small farms. And the Green River valley hosts
many large fields of row crops as well as a large County-owned farm leased out by a
diverse group of farmers. Flooding can negatively impact these operations, particularly if
it occurs before harvest or late into the spring planting season. Farmers cannot sell food
products from flood-damaged fields. Flooding, however, also provides nutrients to the
soil that supports productive agriculture.
While some agricultural sectors are dependent on natural floodplain functions, other
economic sectors have located in the floodplain over decades for other reasons. Large
warehouses in the Green River valley, many in the floodplain, make the region one of the
largest logistics hubs in the nation. But, the square footage of warehouse and aerospace
facilities means that billions of dollars are at risk of flooding every year as well as
thousands of jobs.
The
environment
Flooding is a natural process and supports unique ecosystems and habitats. Many riparian
and aquatic ecosystems depend upon some amount of regular flooding or high water
events. Various salmonid species use high water events to seek refuge as juveniles or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
130
access more favorable habitats, which makes flooding an important part of recovery for
the endangered salmon species in Puget Sound.
Natural floodplain functions typically result in slower-moving floodwaters with less
intense flood height peaks. When upland forest areas are logged or burned, rain and
snowmelt reach streams faster, which can cause flooding to be more intense and push
water through the floodplain more quickly.
King County often incorporates natural functions into the design of projects, which helps
reduce flood risk as well as protect and restore ecosystems. Reconnecting rivers and
coastlines to their historic floodplains through levee setbacks, creating side channels, and
removing obstructions help restore natural functions and bring flood risk reduction
benefits as well. The large Countyline project near Auburn restored 121 acres of
floodplain along the White River and reduce flood risk for over 200 residential properties.
Health
systems
Of the 127 medical facilities throughout King County, only 5 are located in the 0.2%
annual chance floodplain (which includes the 1% annual chance floodplain) and of those,
only 1 is located in the 1% annual chance floodplain. No hospitals are located in the 0.2%
annual chance floodplain. While these 5 facilities are certainly at risk, the risk from
flooding to the overall healthcare and medical system is low.
One area of concern is the ability of residents in certain areas of the County, in particular
sole-access neighborhoods and the lower Snoqualmie Valley, to evacuate for medical
reasons during times of flooding. Neighborhoods with roads that are inaccessible during
flooding are particularly vulnerable. The lower Snoqualmie Valley can also be isolated
when the river reaches beyond a flood phase 4 level.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Because few government facilities are located in floodprone areas, flooding does not pose
a substantial risk to the continuity of government operations. Certain city buildings in
Snoqualmie, North Bend, and Carnation are in floodprone areas, but some are elevated
and others are outside floodprone areas.
Responders Police, firefighters, and paramedics play key roles in the response to flooding. Police
officers often help shut roads down to prevent people from driving through floodwaters;
firefighters often rescue people trapped by flooding; and paramedics transport people
hurt by flooding, often from hypothermia or other causes. If any of these first
responders’ buildings are in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, their ability to respond is
seriously threatened.
Of the 64 police stations in King County, 3 are located in the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain (in Skykomish, Redmond, and Issaquah).
Of the 161 fire stations in King County, 6 are located in the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain (in Skykomish, Seattle, North Bend, Renton, Issaquah, and near Enumclaw).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
131
Additionally, neighborhoods with roads that are inaccessible during flooding pose
challenges to first responders. They may not be able to drive to homes and may require
helicopters or boats to access.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy systems: most overhead powerlines are not susceptible to impacts from
flooding unless the power poles are not resistant to flooding. Buried cables
typically aren’t affected by flooding very often.
• Water/Wastewater: flooding, particularly from king tides and coastal storm
systems can damage wastewater infrastructure such as the County’s West Point
Treatment Plant. Some city wastewater treatment plants are also located in
floodprone riverine areas. Where these linear systems cross rivers, flooding can
pose issues. The Tolt Pipeline, a water supply line for Seattle, was at risk from the
Snoqualmie River migrating further toward its alignment. In 2019, a project was
completed to provide some protection from that risk.
• Transportation: roads through the Snoqualmie Valley are particularly susceptible
to flooding and close regularly during high water events. Valley residents are
often isolated. King County Road Services Division closes roads and will be
working on an effort to study the impacts of flooding on various county roads.
• Communications: most communications infrastructure is not vulnerable to
flooding.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Flooding occurs frequently enough in King County that residents often turn to the King
County River & Floodplain Management Section for help and information during
flooding events. Confidence is high in the government’s ability to respond to flooding
events. The multiple iterations of the Flood Hazard Management Plan have featured
robust stakeholder involvement processes, which has inspired confidence in King
County’s ability to manage floodplains with higher regulatory standards and other
programs to keep people and property safe from flooding.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
132
Regional Risk Profile: Hazardous Materials
Hazard Description
Hazardous materials releases are one of the most common incident types. They can occur due to an
accident or also be secondary to other primary hazards like: terrorist attack, earthquake and volcanic
activity, severe flooding, and fires. Hazardous materials releases occur from leaking containers or
pipelines when corrosion or a puncture occurs, accidental overflow of vessels when being transferred,
loading dock and warehouse accidents, careless handling, illegal activities like drug labs, and traffic
accidents. The person who dumps paint down a sewer is releasing a hazardous material. The illegal drug
lab is using hazardous materials and leaving hazardous waste. The car accident that leaves a pool of fuel,
oil, and anti-freeze has left hazardous materials to clean up. A growing source of materials releases is
from electronic waste dumping, releasing chemicals like lead, zinc, nickel, flame retardants, barium, and
chromium into the environment.
There are nine classes of hazardous materials.
1. Explosives
2. Gases
3. Flammable Liquid and Combustible Liquid
4. Flammable Solid, Spontaneously Combustible, and Dangerous When Wet
5. Oxidizer and Organic Peroxide
6. Poison (Toxic) and Poison Inhalation Hazard
7. Radioactive
8. Corrosive
9. Miscellaneous
Examples of common hazardous materials include anhydrous ammonia (used as a refrigerant), gasoline
and diesel (used as transportation fuels), paints and dyes (for homes and clothing), and many corrosives
(used in the local aircraft manufacturing industry).70 Pipelines and rail lines transport crude oil to
refineries and finished fuels to homes (natural gas) and retail fueling stations for vehicles.
The risk of a CBRNe event (an attack using chemical, biological, radiological, or nerve agent) is low, if
one were to occur this would have widespread impacts. There is little known day-to-day risk of an event,
though this is a major focus of federal, state, and local counterterrorism planners. More information on
hazardous materials in terrorist events will be provided in the terrorism hazard profile.
Although the likelihood of large numbers of fatalities from a single materials release is low, the effects
can be devastating to impacted communities, the economy and the environment. A major oil spill in
Puget Sound would destroy the fishery, including $4.5 billion in commercial fishing, plus tourism, and
sport fishing. The Puget Sound is also a culturally-sacred and environmentally-critical resource that
70 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Nine Classes of Hazardous Materials. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Nine_Classes_of_Hazardous_Materials-4-
2013_508CLN.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
133
cannot be replaced or valued in dollars. In this way, the hazardous materials incident hazard is one of
the most complex. It includes frequent spills and releases from day to day human activities, a threat of a
major release from a massive spill or accident, and the threat of an intentional release from an attack.
The impacts from hazardous materials are also complex, including slow-acting releases that kill people
and the environment over years and
catastrophes that kill thousands, such as in
Bhopal, India in 1984.
Between July 1, 2015 and March 31 2019
Washington State Department of Ecology
received 748 reports of oil spills of one
gallon or more reaching a water source,
including both running into storm drains
and running directly into a waterway. This
only includes reported spills and only
includes oil spills. This does not include the
uncountable quantity of micro-spills that
occur and are later washed into waterways
by rain. For example, the rough spot of
pavement in a parking lot that is the result
of fluids dripping onto the pavement from parked vehicles is
an oil spill.71
In Washington, the state Department of Ecology is the lead agency for hazardous materials. Local
response is led by fire services.
71 Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Atlas. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html.
Class 1, 3, and 4 Spills Program-Regulated Facilities (WA
ECY)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
134
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County hosts a variety of unique transportation and
geographic conditions, including one of the largest deep
water seaports on the west coast, an International Airport in
SeaTac that handles cargo from all over the world, as well as
fuel pipelines running south from Whatcom County through
King County and down into Portland carrying jet fuels,
diesel, gasoline, etc. An estimated 18,833 oil tank cars travel
through King County each quarter.72 Additionally, local
highways like Interstate-5, Interstate-90, Interstate 405, US
Highway 2, State Route (SR) 18, SR 516, SR 167, US
Highway 99 and others transport hazardous materials
throughout the region.
In the City of Seattle alone there are thousands of facilities
with hazardous materials regulated under the fire code.73
Other areas with high concentrations of hazardous materials
usage include Auburn, Redmond and the Kent Valley.
Business types that commonly use hazardous materials include: hospitals, schools and universities, metal
plating and finishing, the aircraft industry, public utilities, cold storage companies, the fuel industries, the
communication industry, chemical distributors, research, and high technology firms. Each of these
facilities is required to maintain plans for warning, notification, evacuation and site security under
various regulations.
While the majority of incidents tend to involve petroleum products, a significant number involve
extremely hazardous materials. Extremely hazardous materials include chemicals like chlorine, ammonia,
sulfuric acid, nitric acid, some pesticides (EHS is a technical designation, so not pesticides- although the
chemistries used as pesticides might be on the EHS list), and other chemicals that can cause immediate
death or injury when inhaled, ingested, or come in contact with skin. Approximately 200 local facilities
with extremely hazardous materials report to the county under Community Right to Know Act
provisions. (plug with time and description of LEPC Seattle and King) These sites report their
inventories annually with records being retained in databases in multiple locations.74
Though they occur every day, many spills are not reported or go undetected. Some industrial spills from
the 1970’s and 1980’s are still being cleaned up in the Kent Valley, Harbor Island, Duwamish corridor,
72 Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Atlas. Accessed online on 7/2/19 from
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html.
73 National Fire Protection Association. Materials Management Codes and Standards. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-
standards?mode=code&code=400.
74 King County Local Emergency Management Planning Committee. 2015. Tier II Reports.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
135
and Seattle/South Park as federal Superfund cleanup sites. There are currently 10 active Superfund
cleanup sites in King County.75 At least five other Superfund sites have completed cleanup and have
been closed since the program began. Currently active sites include:
1. Harbor Island – groundwater contains benzene, ethyl benzene, xylene, mercury, cadmium, lead
and zinc with poly chlorinated bi-phenols (PCB) sediments. 18
2. Lockheed West Seattle – heavy metal contaminants: arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, silver, and
zinc with butyl tins and PCBs.
3. Lower Duwamish Waterway – River sediments are contaminated with mercury, arsenic, PCBs,
dioxins, furans, and phthalates.
4. Midway Landfill – Ground water contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organics.
5. Pacific Car and Foundry – Soil is contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs and solvents.
Approximately 37,000 obtain drinking water from wells within three miles.
6. Pacific Sound Resources – Soil and ground water contaminated by PCBs and heavy metals from
former wood treatment operations.
7. Queen City Farms – the site is a former landfill. Ground water, surface water, and sludge
contaminated by volatile organic compounds. Soil contaminated with PCBs and metals.
8. Quendall Terminals – Soil and ground water contaminated with benzene and creosote from
former manufacturing plant. Contaminants release to Lake Washington.
9. Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands) – Landfill contains volatile organic compounds like
toluene, xylene, vinyl chloride, and others – plus heavy metals.
10. Western Processing – former industrial processing facility ground water and sediment contains
volatile organic compounds, PCBs, phenols, and heavy metals
An example of the cleanup costs for a Superfund site is illustrated by the Harbor Island Cleanup. The
former owner, RSR Corporation agreed to pay $8.5 million in fines toward the cleanup that will cost
(when completed) over $32 million.76 The cost to cleanup an illegal drug lab (in a home) can cost
between $5,000 and $100,000 depending on the size of the home. Often the occupants vacate or
abandon the sites – leaving a bank or credit union holding the mortgage and cleanup costs.77
Scenario Drivers
It is difficult to find a home, school, hospital or place of business that isn’t without chemicals, solvents,
pesticides, lawn chemicals, cleaners and/or paints.
Pipeline rupture
Washington State hosts the only oil refineries in the Northwest. Multiple
pipelines traverse the state, such as the Olympic Pipeline. Failures or
shutdowns in the pipeline can cause fuel shortages and price increases. An
explosion on the Olympic Pipeline in 1999 killed three people and cost over
$58 million in property damage.
75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Sites Where You Live. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live
76 U.S. Department of Justice. 2006. Former Harbor Island Smelter Operator to Pay $8.5 Million in Superfund Cleanup
Costs. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/January/06_enrd_047.html.
77 Dewan, Shaila and Robbie Brown. July 25, 2009. When an ex-meth lab is home. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
6/25/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/when-an-ex-meth-lab-is-a-home/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
136
Chemical/oil train
derailment
An oil spill in 2016 in Moser, Oregon along the Columbia River very nearly
caused the destruction of the entire town and an ecological catastrophe in
the river. The community was saved by luck of the weather and because
most of the oil that spilled flowed into a water treatment plan, where it was
safely contained.
Oil tanker spill
An oil tanker spill in the Puget Sound would devastate marine life and
potentially cause a permanent shut-down in oil tanker traffic due to public
outcry. A major spill would close the fishery economy leading to $4.5 billion
in losses for Washington alone and permanent, incalculable damage to tribal
cultural resources.
Storage facility failure in a
populated area
A facility failure, including an explosion or release of chemicals, could
endanger or kill many people. In Waco, Texas in 2013, an ammonium nitrate
explosion occurred at a distribution facility, leveling a neighborhood and
killing 15 people. A train derailment in 2013 in Lac Megantic in Quebec,
Canada killed 60 people and destroyed much of the town.
Vehicle accident on a
major roadway
Vehicle accidents that release fuel and oil occur every day on Washington
roads. A major incident, especially at an interchange, such as the I-5 and I-
405 interchange in Tukwila/Renton would potentially close both freeways
for an extended period while cleanup occurs.
CBRNe Attack
Another lower-risk, but high-intensity hazardous materials event is from a
chemical, biological, radiological, or nerve agent (CBRNe) attack.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Low-income communities
in or around industrial
facilities
Low-income communities are more likely to be impacted from major
releases due to the proximity of affordable housing to industrial areas and
historic environmental injustices.
Individuals with
respiratory issues
Individuals with respiratory issues are more likely to succumb quickly to an
airborne release of a chemical.
Major transportation
facilities such as the Port
of Seattle
Major transportation facilities store huge amounts of chemicals and fuel in
depots. A failure or fire at one of these facilities could damage or destroy
these assets.
Rail facilities Rail facilities transport chemicals and fuels, including highly combustible
crude oil. There have been multiple derailments and spills. In Moser, Oregon
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
137
in 2016, a train derailed causing a fire that nearly destroyed the town and the
fuel was prevented from leaking in large quantities into the Columbia River
by luck.
Interstate highways
Interstate highways are a major artery carrying chemicals. Accidents happen
every day and major chemical spills can shut down a roadway for an
extended period of time. (oil slicks contribute to traffic injuries and fatalities
when it rains)
Oil tankers in Puget
Sound
Oil tankers are expected to traverse Puget Sound in growing numbers due to
Canada’s approval of a major pipeline and terminal in Vancouver, BC. When
this occurs, it will significantly raise the risk a spill that could destroy much
of the aquatic life in Puget Sound.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Potential Impacts to the public from a hazardous materials spill can vary widely.
Temporary or even permanent displacement through evacuation from an unsafe area can
result in relocation/displacement of populations. Employment disruption, school closure,
impacts to private and community wellheads and other impacts can change whole
communities. Long term exposure to toxic chemicals can cause birth defects and
temporary or permanent health problems – especially for the young, old and infirm.78
Vulnerable
populations
Vulnerable populations often live in closer proximity to facilities with the risk of
hazardous materials release. In King County, this includes residences near the Duwamish
industrial area, in Kent, Renton, and south Seattle. These are also the locations of the
superfund sites in the region. In cases of major releases or system failures, the most
impacted populations are frequently lower-income, often ethnic minority communities
that live nearby. Populations with respiratory issues are also at a heightened risk of
impacts due to an airborne release of chemicals.
Property Spills of hazardous materials to soil or buildings can result in extensive and costly cleanup
efforts. Cleanup standards are established by federal (U.S. EPA), state (Washington State
Department of Ecology), and local standards (fire agencies and environmental agencies).
Until a site is cleaned up to those standards, residential or business occupancy can be
denied under the Health Code. The responsible party (property owner) may be required
to pay for the cleanup. Often this can lead to bankruptcy and clean up by state or federal
agencies and contractors. Contaminated property can drastically reduce the value of the
property and the King County subsequent property taxes available to local and state
78 U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Health Effects of Chemical Exposure. Accessed online on 6/25/19 from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/emes/public/docs/Health%20Effects%20of%20Chemical%20Exposure%20FS.pdf .
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
138
government. Similar impacts can be expected for transportation accidents with hazardous
material spills.
The economy Small spills can close businesses and rather large impact on employment and land use
including the properties of neighbors not responsible for the chemical release. Superfund
sites can impact a community for decades until they are cleaned up. The large salmon and
fishing fleet that calls King County home may be impacted when some of a year’s fish
stock – or even the entire run is impacted.
The
environment
Any chemical spill on or along rails, roads, pipelines, fixed industrial facilities or illegal
drug labs/dumping may impact the natural environment. Wetlands, streams and rivers,
lakes, and reservoirs may all be damaged from chemical spills. In some cases these
damages may injure the plant and animal life irreparably. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish,
and mammals may all be impacted. Air pollutants may impact human inhabitants as well
as the natural environment. Recreational areas can be closed until a suitable solution can
be found to recover the natural environment.
Health
systems
Hospitals can be overwhelmed by major releases of hazardous materials as populations,
both those exposed and those who feel they may have been, check in at emergency
rooms. Hospitals and pharmacies are also sources of hazardous materials, including some
radioactive materials such as those associated with cancer treatment.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
King County is the operator of several facilities that are vulnerable to hazardous materials
spills. The county has three waste water operations (South Plant, West Point Treatment
Plant, and Brightwater). These expensive facilities are vulnerable to the introduction of
chemicals (when in large volumes) to the sanitary sewer system. The county also has solid
waste (garbage) transfer stations and a major landfill operation at Cedar Hills. While
contaminants are avoided, some material may make its way into the landfill and the
ground water table. Drinking water facilities including private and community well heads
and reservoirs may also be vulnerable to introduction of chemical or biological
contaminants. Any chemical spill that impacts a major roadway or rail line may impact
public transit routes in the county.
Responders Hazardous materials make response and recovery activities in all disasters a threat to the
health and safety of responders. During local events, such as house fires, stores of
chemicals can catch fire and explode, injuring responders. During larger events such as
earthquakes, large-scale releases can surprise and overwhelm responders without proper
equipment. It can also be extremely difficult to determine the chemical or chemicals that
have been released from a given spill, adding to first responder danger.
Infrastructure
systems
With hazardous materials being everywhere in our modern community, it is possible to
impact almost any critical facility in the county. Any roadway or rail line is vulnerable to
the many chemicals transported over them daily. Spills to soils and surface water sources
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
139
can impact drinking water and the environment. Materials dumped into sanitary sewers
can contaminate waste water treatment plants. Airborne chemicals can cause the
evacuation of the area downwind of the spill, including critical facilities. Damage to road
surfaces from chemical spills may require the removal and replacement of the entire road
surface and foundational road bed. Transformers used in power transmission contain
chemicals called PCB (Poly chlorinated bi-phenols) that can be released during wind
storms or lightning strikes and traffic accidents. The impacts to business from interrupted
commute/road or railroads closures can last for hours, days, weeks, or longer. White
powder incidents have closed postal facilities and government buildings until the
substance was identified and removed
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The Community Right to Know Act, and other related legislation, resulted from serious
breaches in public confidence following massive releases, explosions, or other failures in
hazardous materials systems. Any major incident in and of itself seems to offer proof to
the public of a regulatory failure. Maintaining Local Emergency Planning Committees and
a regular structure to report and analyze hazardous materials releases is critical to
maintaining public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
140
Regional Risk Profile: Health Incident79
Hazard Description
Disease has been one of the most influential factors in human history. On many occasions, disease has
shaped civilizations and altered the course of history. Throughout the 20th century great strides in
medicine have produced many treatments and cures for the deadliest diseases. Many of these medical
advances have given us a false sense of security that all diseases can be treated or cured in a timely
manner, even though the potential for a devastating disease outbreak continues to threaten our
community.
The impact of these diseases varies based on the virulence of the disease, duration of the illness,
susceptibility of the population to the disease, and spread within the community.
An outbreak can be characterized by the extent of spread of the disease. Epidemic refers to an increase,
often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in
that area. Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually
affecting a large number of people. More common diseases are classified as endemic, as they are at
baseline levels within a community. New or emerging diseases can quickly become an
epidemic/pandemic if there is little or no immunity in the population.
Common disease outbreaks include influenza, norovirus, pertussis, hepatitis A, Salmonella, and E. coli..
Novel strains of influenza are a great risk to King County, because of lack of immunity to a new
influenza virus stain, the potential for severe illness, and the high degree of transmissibility from person
to person.
For King County, the Communicable Disease Epidemiology & Immunization Section within Public
Health – Seattle & King County investigates and coordinates the surveillance of communicable disease
cases and outbreaks.
The impact of a disease can be tracked and characterized using several different indicators. These
indicators can help Public Health assess and respond to potential disease outbreaks.
• Incubation period: The stage of subclinical disease extending from the time of exposure to onset of
disease symptoms.
• Contagious period: The duration after infection during with the person can transmit the infection
to others.
• Infectivity: The proportion of exposed persons who become infected.
• Pathogenicity: The proportion of infected persons who develop clinically apparent disease.
• Virulence: The proportion of clinically apparent cases that are severe or fatal.
79 This risk profile was developed for the Seattle and King County Hazard Mitigation Plans by Public Health Seattle &
King County.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
141
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Epidemics directly affect the health of people who live, work, and visit a community. They have the
potential to be one of the deadliest hazards a community can face. Sickness is the most visible
consequence of an epidemic, but outbreaks can also severely impact the community as schools,
businesses, government agencies and non-profit organizations curtail operations due to employee illness
or as countermeasures. The effects of these curtailments grow the longer the disease persists.
In many epidemic and pandemic situations, disease spreads quickly throughout a community. There are
many factors that can increase King County’s vulnerability to disease spread:
• Rapid population growth, such as is occurring in King County, increases the potential for
acquisition and spread of infectious diseases.
• King County’s large international air and seaports (including an active cruise ship industry)
increase the number of visitors to our area and the risk for importation of infectious diseases.
Diseases that are not endemic to Washington have the potential for introduction and spread
among our residents. Vaccine preventable diseases (e.g., acute viral hepatitis, measles, and
influenza) are significant contributors to morbidity and potential mortality in international
travelers and can cause local outbreaks among susceptible persons.
• Persons experiencing homelessness often also have limited access to medical care, so many
people living homeless and with health problems have difficulty getting prompt treatment.
Living conditions – like crowding and fewer opportunities for personal hygiene – can contribute
to the spread of disease. If someone has an underlying medical condition, alcohol or drug use,
or weakened immune system, they are even more susceptible. In 2017 and 2018, CD-Imms
responded to increases in several infectious diseases among persons experiencing homelessness;
new infections and outbreaks in this population continue to be reported and might continue to
rise given the increase in persons experiencing homelessness in King County.
Disease often affects those most vulnerable in our communities. Young children, the elderly, the poor
and those with underlying health conditions are often the hardest hit by disease.
King County has a large concentration of healthcare resources, but in an epidemic or pandemic these
resources can be stretched or overwhelmed by the outbreak situation. The area also provides specialized
medical care for a large geographic area, including one of the area’s only pediatric hospitals and the only
Level 1 Trauma center for Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. In addition, Airlift Northwest
located at Boeing Field is the only life-flight agency serving the same four-state region.
Other resources, such as food and water, are also a concern when planning for disease outbreaks. King
County has many open reservoirs that provide water to the city. These reservoirs could become
contaminated and be a source of infection for area residents. Food sources can become contaminated
by improper food handling practices or ill food workers. Public Health conducts ongoing surveillance
for food- and waterborne illnesses to identify and quickly control outbreaks.
Although it is impossible to predict the next disease outbreak, history has shown that outbreaks are not
uncommon and can produce devastating effects on a community. While the revolution in medicine in
the past century has increased our ability to counteract disease, increases in the number of people
without adequate healthcare, the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria and globalization help make
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
142
outbreaks spread more quickly and increase their magnitude. Disease outbreaks not only cause
increased morbidity and mortality in the community, but also put a greater strain on the healthcare and
infrastructure system that could prevent the operation of critical services.
Throughout the 20th century several epidemics and pandemics have affected our community.
Influenza. 1918-1919: The influenza pandemic of 1918 was especially virulent, killing a large number of
young, otherwise healthy adults. The pandemic caused more than 500,000 deaths in the United States
and more than 40 million deaths around the world. The 1918 pandemic first arrived in Seattle in
October 1918; over the next six months the virus claimed 1,600 lives.
Influenza. 1957-1958: The influenza pandemic of 1957 was less severe than the 1918 pandemic and
caused a total of 70,000 fatalities nation-wide.
Influenza. 1968-1969: The influenza pandemic caused more than 34,000 deaths in the U.S. and cause
severe morbidity and mortality around the world.
E. coli. 1993: E. coli-contaminated hamburger meat from a local Jack in the Box caused illness in 400
people and led to the death of two people within one month in the Washington area. Cases were seen in
California, Idaho, and Nevada as well.
Pertussis. 2002-2005: Between 2002 and 2003 Public Health reported an 82% increase in the number of
Pertussis infections in infants, and a three-fold increase in the number of cases in children <6 months.
The occurrence of Pertussis in adolescents and adults has been on the rise since 1990, culminating in a
national epidemic in 2005 when 25,616 reported cases nation-wide. Outbreaks within healthcare
facilities can occur quickly because the bacterial infection is highly contagious.
Influenza. 2009: Like the 1918 pandemic, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 affected the young and healthy
populations as well as those with chronic diseases. This increase in morbidity caused strain on the local
healthcare system. Although the H1N1 virus was not as virulent and there were not nearly as many
fatalities as previous pandemics, the outbreak caused a larger than usual amount of disease in the
community than seasonal influenza virus does.
Scenario Drivers
The most likely scenario that activates the region’s emergency management system would be a disease
outbreak that just exceeds our public health system’s capacity. We have chosen hepatitis A outbreak for
the Most Likely Scenario. In 2017, several state and local health departments responded to hepatitis A
outbreaks, spread through person to person contact, that occurred primarily among persons who use
injection and non-injection drugs, and/or person who experienced homelessness and their close
contacts. Multistate outbreaks of hepatitis A infections have also been linked to food products (i.e.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
143
strawberries in 2016 and pomegranate seeds in 2013).80 A large outbreak centered in Seattle would cause
a strain on the public health system and potentially have strong impacts on local businesses, especially
any that the public perceives as responsible for the outbreak.
Hepatitis A Outbreak
Seattle is the center of a hepatitis A outbreak that kills 20 people and makes
hundreds severely ill, including hundreds of hospitalizations. The emergency is
complicated, and infections are spreading among people who are living homeless
who have limited access to adequate hygiene and prompt medical care.
Pandemic Flu
The most severe disease outbreaks would involve pathogens that would infect a
large percentage of an exposed population and hospitalize or kill many people.
Pandemic influenza has the potential to cause this great a disaster. It poses a great
threat to the health of our local community as well as the national/international
community. In addition to human morbidity and mortality, pandemic influenza
can have many socio-economic consequences. Cancellations of schools, work
and public gatherings may be enacted to attempt to halt the spread of disease.
Staff absenteeism can create a strain on government and healthcare systems
causing limitations of services and care. The 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak showed
how potentially easy it is to overwhelm the healthcare system, even though, as it
happened, H1N1 was an influenza that caused less severe disease than a typical
seasonal flu. A pandemic influenza that caused moderate or severe disease would
have a much larger impact on the community. The following table outlines
expected disease rates based on Center for Disease Control modeling.
Characteristic Moderate (1958/68 - like) Severe (1918 - like)
US
King
County US King county
Illness 90 million 540,000 90 million 540,000
Outpatient Care 45 million 270,000 45 million 270,000
ICU Care 128,750 733 1,485,000 8,910
Mechanical
Ventilation 64,875 389 742,500 4,455
Deaths 209,000 1,254 1,903,000 11,418
80 Centers for Disease Control. Hepatitis A Outbreaks in the United States. Accessed online on 6/28/19 from
https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/hepatitisaoutbreaks.htm .
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
144
Bioterrorism
Bioterrorism is another potential cause of on a catastrophic disease outbreak. The
maximum bioterrorism scenario is estimated by Public Health – Seattle & King
County to have impacts similar to the pandemic flu scenario identified above.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Old and young people People who are either old or young have weaker immune systems and are
usually more likely to succumb during an outbreak.
Healthcare staff
Healthcare staff come into regular contact with sick patients and are likely to
be exposed both before the illness is identified and during treatment.
People with compromised
immune systems
People with compromised immune systems are most likely to become
infected and succumb from a serious disease.
People without health
insurance
People without health insurance are more likely to delay getting care,
allowing the disease to spread farther before it is identified.
Health system
The health system is likely to be overwhelmed in any serious epidemic. In
especially serious outbreaks, it may be inadvisable for patients to even come
to the hospital and treatment may have to occur outside of hospital facilities.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
As many as 11,418 deaths are estimated to occur during the most severe pandemic
scenario. Thousands more would be hospitalized, and hundreds of thousands sickened.
As of May 4, 2019, there were 45 influenza fatalities in the 2018-2019 flu season.
Vulnerable
populations
In 2017-2018 flu season, there were nearly 1,000,000 hospitalizations and 79,400 deaths.
The most at-risk group is adults over 65 years of age (70% of hospitalizations).81 Older
adults account for nearly 90% of deaths. During a serious epidemic, older adults,
individuals with compromised immune systems, children, people without health
insurance, people who speak a language other than English, and people who are recent
immigrants to the country are likely to be the most at-risk and suffer the worst impacts.
Property There are no direct impacts to property.
The economy The economy may come to a virtual standstill for weeks on end during severe outbreaks
as people avoid public places. Many small businesses may lose too much revenue and be
81 Centers for Disease Control. Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United
States — 2017–2018 influenza season. Accessed online on 6/28/19 from
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
145
forced to close. Nationally, the economic impact of seasonal influenza has been estimated
as high as $166 billion (2012 dollars).82
The
environment There are no expected impacts to the environment.
Health
systems
Health systems will be overwhelmed and many nurses and doctors potentially sickened.
As facilities become unable to take additional patients, it may be possible to treat people
in outpatient facilities. During the worst-credible scenario, nearly 300,000 residents of
King County would require treatment. This would be far beyond the capacity of the
public health system.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Many government operations may cease to function on a normal basis during the most
severe outbreaks. Agencies may have to adopt work from home policies and take other
steps to protect employees. Due to employee illness, many non-essential functions may
have to be curtailed.
Responders Emergency services would be severely impacted during a serious outbreak because they
are likely to be exposed early due to public contact. As responders become sick, response
times and capabilities would be severely limited.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: There are no direct impacts, outside of employee absenteeism, to the
energy sector.
• Water/Wastewater: There are no direct impacts to the water and wastewater
system from most outbreaks, although this system is a potential target of
bioterrorist activities.
• Transportation: A disease would not cause any direct damage to the
transportation system, but high absenteeism would affect it. Public transit,
shipping, and other services may only function at 50% during especially severe
outbreaks.
• Communications: There are no direct impacts, outside of employee absenteeism,
to the communications sector.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The public understands that an outbreak is a severe natural event; however, restrictions
on public gatherings are not popular and create frustration. Some people may believe they
are not getting enough attention from the medical community. Others may begin to
doubt the efficacy of treatment options if the disease worsens. In the most extreme cases,
confidence in the medical system can be shaken.
82 Mao, Liang, Yang, Yang, Qui, Youliang, and Yan Yang. 2012. Annual economic impacts of seasonal influenza on US
counties: Spatial heterogeneity and patterns. International Journal of Health Geography vol. 11 no. 16. Accessed online on
6/28/19 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479051/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
146
Regional Risk Profile: Landslide
Hazard Description
The term “landslide” covers a range of geomorphic processes in which masses of soil, rock, debris (a
mixture of soil and rock) become detached and move downslope. This mass is usually wet, saturated, or
suspended in water. This movement can happen quickly or slowly; displaced material can remain solid
or move as a liquid. Landslides can range in size from a few cubic yards to millions of cubic yards. The
detailed character of movement is referred to herein as the landslide style. The style of landsliding
depends on the local geology, topography, and hydrology in the vicinity of the failure. Five general styles
of landslide phenomenon have been identified in King County:83
• Deep-seated landslides (including rotational slides, liquefaction spreads, debris flowslides,
• debris avalanches, and rock compound slides),
• Shallow debris slides,
• Processes that build depositional fans (including debris flows and debris floods),
• Rock fall, and
• Rock avalanches.
Landslides are usually a secondary hazard, typically driven by precipitation. Smaller and shallower
landslides are often triggered by storm events lasting hours or days. Large deep-seated slides may be
triggered by wetter than normal conditions that persist for months. Historical records and geologic
evidence also show that large earthquakes, while relatively infrequent can be significant landslide
triggers. Landslides can also be triggered by ill-advised clearing, grading, or stormwater discharge.
Landslides tend to happen in areas where there is a history of previous occurrences. Another major
determinant of landslide risk is local geology. King County’s landscape is very young and is largely a
product of multiple glacial advances over the last two million years, with the most recent advance
approximately 14,000 years ago. Landslides are most common where post-glacial erosion has created
steep slopes in glacial deposits, primarily along beach bluffs, ravine slopes, and river valley walls. In
addition to areas of steep slope some areas of lower slope are actually old, deep-seated landslides which
may be at risk of reactivation. Characteristics of landslide hazard areas include:8485
• A slope greater than 40 percent
• Landslide activity or movement in the last 10,000 years
• Stream or wave action with erosion or bank undercutting
83 King County. 2016. Mapping of Potential Landslide Hazards along the River Corridors of King County, Washington.
Prepared by River and Floodplain Management Section, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural
Resources and Parks. Seattle, WA. August.
84 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Landslide Exposure Assessment. Page 52.
85 Washington State Emergency Management Division. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Page 308.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
147
• The presence of a depositional fan that may indicate a history of debris flows, debris floods, or
rockfall
• The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such
as sand and gravel
Landslides are dangerous and unpredictable. Some landslides may show indications of impending or
incipient movement; others may happen suddenly without any warning signs. Warning signs of a
potential or impending landslide include:86
• Rapidly growing cracks in the ground; downslope movement of rock, soil, or vegetation.
• Sudden changes in creek water levels, sometimes with increased sediment, especially during or
right after large or protracted storm events
• Sounds of cracking wood, knocking boulders, groaning of the ground, or other unusual sounds,
especially if the sound increases
• A hillside that has increased spring and (or) seep activity, or newly saturated ground, especially if
it was previously dry
• Formation of cracks or tilting of trees on a hillside
• New or developing cracks, mounds, or bulges in the ground
• Sagging or taut utility lines; leaning telephone poles, deformed fences, or bent trees
• Sticking windows or doors; new and (or) growing cracks in walls, ceilings, or foundations
• Broken or leaking utilities, such as water, septic, or sewer lines
• Separation of structures from their foundation; movement of soil away from foundations
• Changes in water well levels or water wells that suddenly run dry
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
The most significant landslide risk in King County is during the rainy season from November through
January.
Areas in the County most at risk from landsliding include those on or near coastal bluffs, ravine and
valley slopes, and in steep mountainous topography. Parcels on slopes greater than 40 percent are at an
elevated risk of landsliding compared with more level sites. The landslide risk assessment used WA
DNR Landslides and Landforms digital data identifying historic landslide areas, potentially unstable to
intermediate-sloped areas, and potential deep-seated landslide areas.
Since 2006, there have been seven disaster declarations impacting the county, including DR-4168 for the
SR 530 (Oso) landslide in Snohomish County. Landslides occur during virtually every major storm event
and earthquake. Landslides are especially likely in areas where they have been recorded before. A good
method of assessing likelihood of a future landslide is to know if the area has had a history of landslides.
86 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Landslide Hazards in Washington State. Accessed online
on 6/7/19 from https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_fs_landslide_hazards.pdf?h283k .
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
148
• 2001 – DR1361 – Nisqually Earthquake triggers landslides around the state. $66.7M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
• 2006 - DR-1737 – Severe storms trigger flooding and landslides. $29.5M in Public Assistance
(statewide) was authorized along with $5.4M in Individual Assistance.
• 2007 – DR-1734 – Severe winter storms trigger landslides. $61.3M in Public Assistance was
authorized along with $21.2M in Individual Assistance.
• 2009 – DR-1817 – Sever winter storms trigger flooding and landslide.
• 2011 – DR-1963 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides.
• 2014 – DR-4168 – A slope along SR 530 in Snohomish County fails, bringing with it an entire
neighborhood and killing 43 people. This is one of the deadliest disasters in Washington State
History. There is a long history of landslides in this area and the tragedy leads the state to invest
in a new landslide mapping program.
• 2012 – DR-4056 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides. $30.1M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
• 2017 – DR-4309 – Severe winter storms trigger flooding and landslides. $12.5M in Public
Assistance was authorized.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
149
Scenario Drivers8788
For planning purposes, King County looks at three common or particularly deadly landslides. These
usually result after major weather events or due to human activities or other disturbances such as a
major wildfire.
Deep Landslide
Deep-seated landslides are those that fail below the
rooting depth of trees and vegetation. They are
often slow moving but can also move rapidly.
Deep-seated landslides can cover large areas and
devastate infrastructure and housing developments.
These landslides usually occur as translational slides,
rotational slides, or large block slides. Deep-seated
landslides are typically much larger than shallow
landslides, in terms of both surface area and
volume. A deep-seated landslide may appear stable
for years, decades, or even centuries. These long-
lived features can be partially or entirely reactivated
for a variety of reasons.
Debris Flows
Debris flows usually occur in steep gullies, move
very rapidly, and can travel for many miles. Slopes
where vegetation has been removed are at greater
risk for debris flows and many other types of
landslides. The figure shows a series of flows
located in the Cedar River Watershed. The ages of
these slides are unknown, but they are geologically
very young as they overlap (and therefore post-date)
the entire suite of river terraces present here. The
exact trigger for this assemblage of large, closely
spaced landslides is unclear.
87 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
88 Washington State Geologic Survey. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/7/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides#types-of-landslides.8
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
150
Shallow Landslides
Shallow debris slides (also known as shallow
landslides) are a common style of slope movement
both in the Puget Lowland and Cascade Mountains.
Shallow debris slides are characterized by failure of
a relatively shallow layer of soil typically sliding on a
surface of more competent material, either bedrock
or dense glacial sediments. Shallow debris slides are
typically 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) and translational.
Shallow colluvial soils on slopes are formed through
a variety of processes, including breaking up of the
underlying in-place substrate (either bedrock or
Quaternary sediments) by freeze/thaw,
wetting/drying, bioturbation, and chemical
weathering. Soils on steep slopes in King County
vary significantly with respect to soil thickness, soil
strength, and hydraulic properties; this variability
presents the central challenge in assessing their
stability across a landscape.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Homes built above, on, or
below bluffs or slopes
Homes built on bluffs or other slopes apply addition weight to a slope and
increase the likelihood of slope failure. Homes built below bluffs have also
been destroyed by slope failure.
Transportation corridors,
including on I-90 and
Seattle-Everett BNSF rail
line
Transportation routes are often cut through steep areas or travel through
valleys with a history of landslides.
Debris flows after
vegetation removal
Coseismic Landsliding
Vegetation removal due to logging, land development, view clearing, or
wildfire reduces the root strength that often anchors and reinforces shallow
soils. Shallow landslides often increases following vegetation removal and if
debris from such a slide enters a hillside swale it may transition into a debris
flow that can have devastating impacts far below and distant from the initial
failure.
This Risk Profile addresses primarily landsliding for which our region has
significant collective experience. This includes of landslides triggered by
weather events and human disturbance. Geologic evidence is clear that this
region is subject to earthquakes from several sources larger than those that
have been well documented in the historical record. Widespread landsliding
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
151
is likely to be a secondary but significant and potentially catastrophic
consequence of a future occurrence of such a large earthquake xx.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
While the total number of people exposed to landslides is relatively small, and the risk of
a rapid slope failure has tended to be low, many homeowners do not carry insurance to
cover losses from landslide hazards. The total number of people exposed to the landslide
hazard is unknown since landslide hazards are spatially limited and do not align with
population information in Census data.
Vulnerable
populations
No additional impacts to vulnerable populations are expected from this hazard.
Property In total, 2.6 percent of structures in King County are identified as being within a landslide
hazard area, resulting in an estimated $9.8 billion in exposed value. The City of Lake
Forest Park has the highest percentage of structures exposed in a landslide hazard area at
16.4 percent. The cities of Bellevue and Seattle and unincorporated King County are
estimated to each have over $1 billion of estimated exposed value within landslide hazard
areas.89 The slopes of Magnolia, West Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, Vashon Island,
Newcastle, Federal Way and many areas of Bellevue have long been developed for their
magnificent views of
Mount Rainier, the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, and Puget Sound. Homes with
vistas of the Olympic Mountains provide sunsets that are breathe taking – and expose a
risk of land movement damages to property build on poor soils.
The economy There have been direct and indirect impacts to the greater King County community from
landslide activity. Residential housing in the greater Puget Sound area that have been built
to enjoy the spectacular mountain of the Olympics and Cascade ranges and water views
of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Puget Sound are vulnerable to land
movement. Loss of transportation can also have economic impacts. In November 2008,
State Road 410 was closed as the result of a debris flow east of Enumclaw. A landslide
caused damage to the Green River Bridge on State Route 169 that resulted in the bridge
being closed for repairs for eight months. These incidents resulted in SBA loans to
89 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Landslide Exposure Assessment. Page 52.
xx A scenario study of seismically induced landsliding in Seattle using broadband synthetic seismograms
Allstadt, K., Vidale, J.E., and Frankel, A., 2013, A scenario study of seismically induced landsliding in Seattle using
broadband synthetic seismograms, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 103(6), 2971-2992
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
152
impacted businesses. The SR 530 Oso landslide caused a complete reroute of the main
highway between Everett and Darrington, devastating the local economy and forcing
residents to commute several hours longer to work each day.
The
environment
Landslides that fall into streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well
as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolonged
periods of time due to landslides. However, landslides also provide integral resources for
many ecosystems. They contribute needed gravel and sediment or wood for building
complex in-stream habitats, estuarine marshes, and beaches that are important for
fisheries, wildlife and recreation. The Cedar River was partially dammed by slide debris
from the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001. Similarly, in March of 2004, a landslide near
Renton partially dammed the Cedar River again. All major rivers in King County support
salmon and/or steelhead spawning populations.
Health
systems No special impacts to health systems are expected from this hazard.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Most impacts to King County delivery of essential services are indirect. Roadways closed
may impede the county work force from reaching work locations. Transfer stations for
solid waste management and sewer lines and lift stations feeding the Metro South Plan,
West Point Treatment facility or Brightwater facility may be impacted by slide activity.
Only a small number of bus routes use roadways with the potential for impacts by slide
activity. Slide activity has resulted in first responder access issues and diverted road and
infrastructure maintenance resources. Resulting detours have also impacted the commute
of essential workers to their normal work locations. Some slide activity has caused
temporary access issues for solid waste transfer stations and to the Cedar Hills Landfill
locations.
Responders Most commonly, homes are isolated and ready access to communities by first responders
is impeded by slide activity. Access to schools, businesses, and public services may be
impeded by road blockages from slide activity. While no recent deaths or injuries have
been reported in King County from land movement, the incident in Snohomish County
referred to as the SR 530 Slide or the Oso Slide, 43 people were killed (2014).
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Landslides pose some risk to transmission lines that cross unstable slopes.
Otherwise, landslides are not a primary concern for this sector.
• Water/Wastewater: Landslides or debris flows in and around reservoirs or
waterbodies that support water systems can cause disruptions in water services
and the loss of infrastructure. Water supply pipelines may cross unstable areas
and be damaged by slope movement. Even if not directly impacted by earth
movement, systems that pull water directly from impacted waterbodies will have
to deal with increased turbidity or a loss of supply if the water is temporarily cut
off by earth damming or rerouting a river. Finally, failures in water system
transmission mains can actually saturate a slope and trigger landslides.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
153
• Transportation: Transportation routes can be closed for long periods by
landslides and rockslides. The following are some documented incidents. In
November 2008, State Road 410 was closed as the result of a debris flow east of
Enumclaw. A landslide caused damage to the Green River Bridge on State Route
169 that resulted in the bridge being closed for repairs for eight months. These
incidents resulted in SBA loans to impacted businesses. In May 2005, 11 homes
were isolated after a small slide on Mercer Island. That September, two lanes of I-
90 west of Snoqualmie Pass were closed after a rockslide. A January 15, 1997
slide at Woodward in southern Snohomish County derailed five cars of a freight
train. Passenger and cargo rail traffic was interrupted for nine days. Cargo traffic
resumed first. Amtrak remained concerned for passenger safety and did not travel
on this section of track for several weeks. This type incident can happen almost
annually and sometime more than once each year.
• Communications: There is limited risk to communications systems as a whole
from landslides. Given the redundancy in systems and proliferation of cell towers,
which tend to be less vulnerable, landslides are not a primary concern.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The 2014 SR 530 Oso landslide demonstrated some of the major weaknesses in
emergency management capabilities. It also demonstrated a lack of regulation and
foresight on the part of government in the permitting of development in the area, which
was a known slide area. Local critical areas ordinances do require mitigation for
construction in slide hazard areas, but in the Oso slide, this proved to be inadequate. A
failure by develops, the government, and residents to properly account for slide risk and
protect people from it led to multiple lawsuits and a general lowering of public
confidence in government’s ability to properly regulate land development.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
154
Regional Risk Profile: Severe Weather
Hazard Description
Severe weather events occur annually in King County, especially between October and April. Severe
weather can include heavy rain, snow, and ice; drought; extreme heat and cold; and high winds.
Secondary effects of severe weather can include avalanche, flooding, landslides, power outages, and
increased demand on medical services such as during extreme heat events. Many of these events are
expected to increase in frequency, duration, and/or intensity as the climate changes, and new weather
hazards are growing in importance, especially heat and drought. The most frequent impacts from severe
weather events are in the rural or suburban parts of the county, where it can take days or weeks to clear
roads or restore power; however, events such as extreme cold or heat have a greater impact on urban
parts of the county, where there are large unsheltered populations.
The most common source of damaging/severe weather is the Pineapple Express or atmospheric river
event. This phenomenon results from moisture picked up by the jet stream over warm areas of the
Pacific Ocean that drops as intense precipitation when the moisture-laden air rises over the Olympic
and Cascade Mountains. Atmospheric river events are a significant contributor to river flooding in
King County.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Though known for being wet, the Seattle metro area has around the same average annual precipitation
as Dallas, Texas, and much less than New York City, Houston, Atlanta, or New Orleans. Higher
amounts of rainfall occur as you move closer to the Cascades. King County owes its mild climate to the
influence of Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean, which moderate the climate, and to the protective
barrier of the Cascade mountain range, which blocks cold air from the interior.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
155
Given the rarity of extreme snow events, King County maintains a relatively low budget for snow
removal services. When major incidents do occur, vehicles and drivers can be stranded almost anywhere
in the county. Impacts from unusually heavy snowfalls and severe winter weather in King County tend
to be short-lived, although there are exceptions. A well-known example is the 2008 winter storm, the
largest event since 1996. In the 2008 ‘Seattle Snowpack,’ snow blanketed Seattle and much of King
County and remained on the ground from December 13 to December 27 due to a prolonged period of
cold temperatures. At the time, Seattle did not use salt to clear roadways, due to environmental
concerns. This decision was reversed after the storm event.
Climate change is a major concern for King County. Climate change is projected to lead to drier, hotter
summers and more heavy rain events. The consequences of these events can include floods, landslides,
avalanches, droughts, and wildfires. The economic consequences can be serious since communities
generally are not prepared for extreme weather events, and some events (such as flooding and wildfire)
can have widespread impacts on public and private infrastructure. Extreme weather can also affect
public health. For example, some climate scenarios project that hundreds of Seattleites could die in each
extreme heat event if global temperatures rise 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels.90
The majority of disaster declarations in King County are from severe weather events. Disasters are
usually declared for a combination of severe storms or winter storms, mudslides, heavy rains, and
straight-line winds. The primary impacts and costs triggering these declarations include emergency
protective measures for, and damage to, utilities, roads, and bridges, and for costs associated with debris
removal.
Major Weather Disaster Declarations Including King County
DECLARATION NUMBER DESCRIPTION FEMA-APPROVED
DAMAGES (KING
COUNTY ONLY)
852 1990, Jan - Flooding $5,246,411
883 1990, Nov - Flooding $3,694,824
896 1990, Dec – Flooding $477,737
981 1993, Jan – Inaugural Day Wind Storm $1,927,837
1079 1996, Jan – Winter Storm $3,031,519
1100 1996, Feb – Flooding $4,226,719
90 Bush, Evan. June 14, 2019. Seattle unprepared for deadly heat waves made worse by global warming, researchers sa y.
The Seattle Times. Accessed online on 6/17/19 from: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/heat-
waves-could-kill-hundreds-more-in-seattle-as-globe-warms-researchers-say/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
156
1159 1997, Jan Winter Storm $3,576,309
1172 1997, April – Flooding $1,266,446
1499 2003, Nov – Flooding $4,400,000
1671 2006, Nov Flooding $16,000,000
1682 2006, Dec – Hanukkah Eve Windstorm $29,000,000
1734 2007, Dec – Winter Storm $72,500,000
1817 2009, Jan – Winter Storm $17,000,000
1825 2009, Mar – Winter Storm $5,500,000
1963 2011, Feb – Winter Storm $8,697,563 (Statewide)
4056 2012, Feb – Winter Storm $32,345,445 (Statewide)
4309 2017, Feb – Winter Storm $26,612,080 (Statewide)
King County Drought Declarations
YEAR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
1919 Water Shortage Dry summer
1928-30 Statewide drought Rainfall was 20% of
normal
1952-53 Water shortage Lack of winter
precipitation
1977 Severe to Extreme Drought Low Precipitation
1965-66 Water shortage Dry throughout state
1967 Water shortage Dry summer
2001 Moderate to Severe Drought; statewide Low Precipitation
2005 Water shortage, March – King Co Drought
Response Plan Activated
Record Low
Precipitation, low snow
pack, low river levels
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
157
2015 Water shortage record low snowpack Snow pack at 0 in
central Puget Sound by
mid-May
Scenario Drivers
Severe weather can occur in any season. This may include: rain, wind, tornados and funnels clouds, ice,
snow, hail, extreme heat, or extreme cold. Climate change is expected to affect extreme weather
incidents by changing the frequency, intensity, and/or severity of events.
Rain and Snow
Precipitation
The geographical location of northwestern Washington subjects it to several natural
climatic controls: the effects of terrain, the Pacific Ocean, and semi-permanent high-
and low-pressure regions located over the North Pacific Ocean combine to produce
significantly different weather conditions within short distances. Rainfall in King
County varies widely from city to city and area to area. The City of Seattle has an
average of 37 inches annually, while Enumclaw has an annual average of 57.9 inches
and Snoqualmie/North Bend has 61+ inches of precipitation. The majority of this
precipitation occurs as rain in the lowlands between October and early May with
substantial snow pack in the Cascades during the same time frames. Precipitation on
Snoqualmie Pass in the unincorporated community of Hyak (2800 feet) average 410
inches of snowfall from October to May.
Snow accumulations in King County at elevations below 2,000 feet are uncommon. On
average, Seattle will have one or two snow storms during a winter season with
appreciable accumulations. Snow accumulation rarely remains two days after such a
storm. Heavy local snows and associated cold conditions have resulted in power
outages, transportation system impacts, school closures, and adverse impacts to the
regional economy.
Wind
High wind events in King County are fairly common and are usually experienced as
part of a winter weather pattern. Annually, wind gusts of 40-45 miles per hour are
recorded locally (NOAA) with severe wind incidents recording speeds of 90 miles per
hour and greater. Winter wind incidents often include: widespread power outages, road
and bridge closures, tree damage, airport closures/re-routing, hospitalizations or
fatalities related to carbon monoxide poisoning, and injuries to utility workers, first
responders, and the public. One of the best known wind events was the Inaugural Day
Windstorm on January 19, 1993. Winds began mid-morning, lasted five hours and
reached over 90 miles per hour in downtown Seattle. The Hanukkah Eve Windstorm
of December 15, 2006 heavily damaged the Seattle area power grid, affecting hundreds
of thousands in the subsequent weeks. Usually, these damaging winter winds are from
the south.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
158
Tornado
King County and the Puget Sound region do experience tornado activity. Tornados
have reached F3 designation within the region, but the slower F0 and F1 class tornados
are more common. In September of 2009 the Enumclaw area experienced a class F1
tornado. Though wind speeds of up to 110 mph were estimated, the most substantive
damage recorded was the uprooting of trees and damage to roofs, much of which
could be attributed to the preceding storm. Tornados are a result of strong weather
systems and often times accompany serve wind, rain, and hail. It is not unusual to have
funnel clouds spotted during the winter season.
Extreme Cold
and Ice
King County’s marine climate results in very few extreme cold/ice events. Regionally,
temperatures below freezing occur for extended periods for 10-14 consecutive days in
January or February each winter. Transportation impacts to buses, trains, roads, bridges
include snow routes, shelter needs, and power outages. The December 26, 1996 storm
lasted 11 days. Multiple consecutive freezing days can threaten the lives of unsheltered
and lower-income individuals, requiring the opening of additional shelter beds or more
heating assistance funding.
Extreme Heat
Climate change is expected to lead to warmer winters and hotter summers. Health
sensitivity to heat events is higher in the Puget Sound region due to the lack of air
conditioning in our region. Public Health Seattle-King County will activate cooling
centers and public messaging for multiple days in the mid-80s.
Drought
With the anticipation that higher winter temperatures reduce our snowpack, drought
conditions in the summer following low snowpack rises dramatically. Lower snow pack
and drier summers can result in lower reservoirs and increased calls for water
conservation, reduced water availability and higher mortality for salmon and steelhead
runs (due to high water temperature and low river flows), impacts on local crops and
livestock, and increased emergency room visits due to heat stress. Some degree of
drought conditions exists where precipitation is less than 75% of normal. Drought has
become a growing concern in the Northwest both because of variable rainfall patterns
and because of observed increases in temperature in the summer. With a higher risk of
drought and hotter temperatures, wildfire has become a higher risk for King County.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Unsheltered populations
Populations needing shelter are especially exposed during heat and cold
events. Since King County has a moderate climate, many of these
populations are unprepared. Cold events may require opening additional
shelter spaces and canvassing areas to offer shelter services.
Rural transportation
corridors
Rural transportation routes are lower priority and may not even be cleared at
all during a snow event.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
159
Immigrant populations
and those with limited
English proficiency
Populations with limited English proficiency or who are inexperienced with
Northwestern climate are more likely to take risky actions, like operating a
generator or grill indoors for heat. These populations are also less likely to
receive information and warnings about weather systems and to know where
to go for help.
Power transmission
systems
Power transmission systems, especially power lines, are frequently damaged
during storms with high winds by falling trees. During major wind events, it
is not uncommon to have hundreds of thousands of residents without
power.
Low-income and
minimum-wage
populations
Populations working in low-wage professions such as extractive industries
and service industries can be severely impacted from multi-day weather
events that impact transportation systems. These events can trigger a long-
term decline in living standards or even homelessness in these populations.
Service industry during
peak periods
Many service businesses, especially retail, are heavily dependent on income
earned during certain months of the year. A major event around the
Christmas holidays, for example, can threaten the viability of many
businesses.
People dependent on
public transportation
Public transit moved to the most restrictive routes ever recorded during the
February 2019 snowstorm. These cutbacks had apparent disproportionate
impacts on underserved areas, including some areas with populations
dependent on transit. When transit services are cut, it can be impossible for
these populations to get to work or appointments.
People with chronic
medical conditions
People requiring regular care from doctors are negatively impacted by severe
weather events. During heatwaves, people with chronic illnesses, especially
heart and respiratory conditions, are also disproportionately impacted.
All residents during multi-
day events
Although campaigns recommend having two weeks of food and supplies
available, few residents follow this guidance, regardless of income. After
more than a few days, many residents will run out of food for themselves
and any pets.
Residents down private
roads
Private roads are not eligible to be cleared by public snow removal services.
Many homeowner’s associations contract with the same set of snow removal
companies. These companies may become overwhelmed during long-
running events.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
160
Water and wastewater
systems facilities
Damage to water and wastewater facilities can occur due to a secondary
hazard, flooding and tidal surge. These facilities are often built in low-lying
areas. The severe damage and release of untreated water that occurred at
King County’s West Point Treatment Plan occurred during a severe weather
event.
Buildings on slopes of
greater than 40% grade
Landslides are a major secondary hazard of severe precipitation events.
Buildings on or near slopes of greater than 40% grade are most at-risk.
Travelers at airport
facilities
Airport facilities are frequently impacted by severe weather events, but often
have plans and procedures to contain disruption. During multi-day events,
however, passengers can be stranded and there can be a shortage of hotel
rooms since many airlines contract with the same hotels.
Waste Management Garbage pickup can be delayed for weeks. This causes significant public
frustration.
Priority Impact Areas
King County residents Anyone present in King County at the time of a weather incident is subject
to the potential impacts of severe weather incidents. While the likelihood of a
winter weather incident is high, the likely of direct and significant impacts is
Moderate.
Impacts to residents may include: personal property damages, interruption of
sports and recreation, extension of the daily business commute, impacts to
daycare and school closures, injuries, and sheltering needs from power
outages. Avalanche control may be needed to reduce the impact to alpine
and cross-country skiing enterprises. Injuries and deaths do occur from
avalanche impacts to recreational skiers. Impacts from drought take time to
materialize as water shortage cause restrictions to water usage and issue of
burn bans to reduce the threat of wildfires, especially in suburban areas. Only
the most severe weather incidents have an impact on local employment.
Vulnerable populations
Severe weather events, while usually concentrating impacts on infrastructure
and agriculture, can seriously threaten the lives of vulnerable people. Cold
and hot weather events can lead to an increase in fatalities among the elderly
and homeless populations. Immigrant and low-income populations also have
been known to succumb by carbon monoxide poisoning that can occur
when generators or grills are lit indoors and without proper ventilation. Snow
can trap people indoors for days, something especially threatening for people
with food insecurity or chronic health conditions that require access to
medical services. Any disruption to the economy is also especially threatening
to those who are low-income or who work in hourly work or in the service
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
161
sector. When those jobs are not open, they frequently do not pay wages,
which can threaten the entire livelihood of a low-income family.
Property All structures in the county are subject to the direct impacts of severe
weather incidents. These same structures are subject to flood impacts where
they may be in the flood plain. Structures along the coastline (seawalls) may
be eroded. Local urban flooding also occurs from storm debris clogged
sewers.
High winds that accompany winter weather fronts often cause infrastructure
damages, power outages, and communications interruptions. Rain saturated
soils may cause mudslides that close roadways, damage bridges, and buried
rail service interruptions
Private property damages to homes and vehicles from floods, trees downed
from wind and saturated soils are regular occurrences. Private property
experiencing repeated flood damages may require elevation of the structure
or offers of buy outs (mitigation efforts).
High winds, snow, and icy conditions can close airports or cause flight delays
and rerouting. Mountain pass conditions may be so severe that they are
closed to all traffic for days at a time. The floating bridges over Lake
Washington (I-90 and SR 520) experience closures for sustained winds over
45 miles per hour. These closures extend the business commute with
increased traffic on surface streets and routes around Lake Washington.
Impacts to emergency medical services from impacts to the roadways of the
county can delay response times, restrict emergency room staff and supplies,
and result in under staffing EMS and hospitals during severe weather
emergencies.
The economy There are several local ski areas important to King County: Crystal Mountain
(Chinook Pass); Alpental, Hyak, and Ski Acres (Snoqualmie Pass); and
Steven’s Pass (Steven’s Pass). Ski area closures can occur from both large
snowfalls and where snow is too light or melts off. This can impact seasonal
employment at the ski areas.
Also associated with the passes, as outlined in the avalanche chapter, a
WSDOT study claimed that a four-day closure at Snoqualmie Pass in the
winter of 2007/2008 cost the state $27.9M in economic output, 170 jobs,
and $1.42M in state revenue (2008 dollars).
Businesses can be severely impacted when weather events impede mobility
during high seasons, such as around the holidays. Since a large percentage of
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
162
annual personal spending is spent during the November-December season,
negative weather limits access to stores and can cause stores to close.
Drought conditions can impact the regional agricultural output of fruits,
vegetables, and flowers grown in all the major river basin areas of King
County. Regional drought conditions can impact generation of hydroelectric
power and drive up electric rates as well as increase usage during hot
summers.
The most serious and longest-lasting impacts may be to low-income
individuals and families who may lose jobs or days of wages due to snow
closures. Debt traps caused by missed bills due to lost wages can damage a
family for months or years.
The environment Severe weather can have impacts to the environment through flooding and
floodplain damages to salmon and steelhead habitat, wetland impacts to
amphibians and reptiles, and bird sanctuaries. Oddly, this can occur from
both too much water (flooding or dam failure) or too little snow pack and
resulting drought conditions. Hillside destabilization can occur where soil
geology and saturation of soils occur.
The moisture content of vegetation drops throughout the summer. Dry
conditions can result in an increase in the threat of wildfires from lightning
strikes, unattended campfires, fireworks, sparks from automobiles, cigarettes
thrown from cars on roadways and other heat sources.
The dilemma of drought conditions is the balance between human water
needs and the protection of the environment including plants, wildlife, and
fish that require minimum stream flows to support their annual spawning
migrations. Dry conditions also contribute to higher water temperatures,
which causes increased salmon mortality.
Health systems Severe weather disrupts the regular schedule of patient visits and regularly-
scheduled appointments for chronic care. Severe weather also can cause
more demand on the health system as people are injured or are unable to
leave the hospital to return home. Any disruptions to electricity and water
supply also can be a threat, though hospitals generally maintain backup
generators.
During severe cold or warm spells, public health may be required to provide
additional patient transport services and to canvass for homeless populations
that may be in need of shelter. During the February 2019 snowstorm,
hospitals suffered major staffing shortages as doctors and nurses were unable
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
163
to get to work. Staff had to work longer than normal hours and potentially
stay temporarily at or near the hospital.
Although both requiring the expansion of sheltering services, heat and cold
differ because older and less health populations are especially at risk to hot
temperatures. One of the most famous examples is the 1995 Chicago heat
wave, during with 739 people lost their lives, with the city unprepared to
provide support to residents who may be home bound or offer sufficient
cooling centers to support residents. In Seattle, where few residents have air
conditioners, deaths from heat events is a growing threat.
Government operations
(continuity of operations)
During the February 2019 snowstorm, King County took the unprecedented
step of closing many government offices to protect employee safety. After
two days, due to the growing amount of snow and the need to resume
services, offices were reopened. Even with the reopening, many employees
chose to telework due to safety concerns. An earlier activation of the EOC
for the 1996 snow/ice storm saw activations for 11 days – 2 shifts per day
when 16 inches of snow came and stayed for weeks. During that time frame,
buses were on snow routes, up to 40% of the employees for King County
government were either unable to get to work or arrived very late. A major
improvement from 1996 to 2019 is that it is now much easier to telework,
meaning that non-public-facing positions can work remotely for days.
Hospitals, courts, detention facilities, businesses, law enforcement, fire and
emergency medical services were all severely impacted. Search and Rescue
volunteers transported medical personnel, emergency management staff, and
other essential employees to work and between hospitals for the duration of
the incident. During the February 2019 snowstorm, busses were on the most
restrictive service routes ever seen. These routes were established in response
to previous snow events. Similar impacts were observed for the January 2011
snow storm that impaired King County government operations for 8 days.
Some damages were experienced at crucial facilities around the county. See
FEMA Disasters 1079 and 1817 above. The recent February 2019
snowstorm did not receive a disaster declaration.
During that time frame, most regional public services were impacted by
absenteeism, access restrictions to critical facilities, and damage to vehicles
like buses, police cruisers, and aid units. Busses and other vehicles that use
tire chains are especially vulnerable to breaking down, which can delay a
return to full service, even once the snow has melted.
Responders Portions of the population may be stranded or isolated from the results of
severe weather, like roads blocked by trees and power lines, snow- and ice-
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
164
covered roads, water or slides over roadways. Closure of the mountain passes
for heavy snow conditions or avalanche control is a fairly common
occurrence.
Excessive heat that extends over days or weeks or cold conditions for similar
timeframes may result in the need for cooling or warming shelters. These
especially impact the poor, elderly, young, and infirmed.
First responders will be impacted by limited road access, impacts of heat and
cold on operations. Conditions will require monitoring efforts during
incident response.
Infrastructure systems • Power: Downed trees caused by high winds and rain saturated soils
can damage transmission lines and cause power outages in local areas
for hours to days when multiple occurrences are experienced. Utility
crews from Puget Sound Energy, Bonneville Power and Seattle City
Light work around the clock to restore services. The Inaugural Day
Windstorm left 750,000 customers without power. The Hanukkah
Eve Windstorm winds and subsequent heavy rains cut electricity to
more than 1.8 million customers, hundreds of thousand remained
without power for days. Downed power lines pose an electrocution
hazard to motorists, pedestrians and any unsuspecting by-standers.
During extremely hot temperatures, demands on the power system
can increase, especially as more residents install air conditioning. As a
winter-peaking system, however, this power demand will still likely
be lower than current winter demand.
• Water/Wastewater: Water and wastewater systems are vulnerable to
a multi-day loss of power as well as to serious flooding. In February
2017, as a result of heavy rains, high tides, and other severe weather,
an equipment failure at King County’s West Point Wastewater
Treatment Plan led to the dumping of over 235 million gallons of
untreated wastewater into Puget Sound. Drought can also impact
water systems as water levels in reservoirs and groundwater wells
drop.
• Transportation: Events that impact transportation can include severe
snow, ice, wind, and rain. Storms may cause downed trees and snow
or ice that temporarily blocks roadways or can cause large floods that
can wash out or undermine roads and bridges. For many parts of the
state and county, such as around the town of Skykomish, the loss of
a single route due flooding can completely cut the community off
from the rest of the county. This is especially a problem in the
eastern parts of the county that are more rural and have fewer
transportation route options.
• Communications systems can be knocked out by high winds or loss
of power transmission. While the move to cell phones has reduced
the vulnerability of telephone lines to outage caused by trees, a multi-
day loss of power can still shut down a cell transmission site.
Furthermore, high winds can damage or destroy critical equipment
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
165
on cell towers. Most equipment is built to withstand inclement
weather; however, especially severe conditions could still lead to
outages.
Public confidence in
jurisdiction’s governance
and capabilities
The 2008 and 2011 snowstorms highlighted the shortage of snowplows and
the management of the general response to the snow incident in the City of
Seattle.
The February 2019 event can be regarded by many as much more successful
on the public perception front. Successful coordination of a regional call
center in the EOC to support other county departments and take snow
plowing requests helped ensure the public always had someone to call. The
county also maintained substantial engagement with media outlets. The
County Executive was fully involved as well, helping to boost awareness and
public perception that county government was engaged in the storm
recovery effort.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
166
Regional Risk Profile: Terrorism
Hazard Description
Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In
Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-
threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and…
appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States…” . Within the government, combating terrorism is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s top investigative priority. The FBI further defines terrorism as either domestic or
international:
• Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with
primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social,
racial, or environmental nature.
• International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with
designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
The terrorism threat has evolved significantly since the September 11, 2001 series of coordinated attacks
by the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States. The threat landscape (referring to
identified threats, trends observed, and threat actors) has expanded considerably. Three factors have
contributed to the evolution and expansion of the terrorism threat landscape:91
• Internet: International and domestic threat actors have developed an extensive presence on the
Internet through messaging platforms and online images, videos, and publications, which
facilitate the groups’ ability to radicalize and recruit individuals receptive to extremist messaging.
• Social Media: Social media has allowed both international and domestic terrorists to gain
unprecedented, virtual access to people living in the US in an effort to enable homeland attacks.
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in particular, encourages sympathizers to carry out simple
attacks where they are located against targets—in particular, soft targets. This message has
resonated with supporters in the US and abroad. Several recent attackers have claimed to be
acting on ISIS’ behalf.
• Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs): The FBI defines HVEs as global-jihad-inspired
individuals who are based in the US, have been radicalized primarily in the US, and are not
directly collaborating with a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). HVEs may assemble in
groups but typically act independently in attacks or other acts of violence.
91 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2019. Terrorism Webpage. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
167
Domestic terrorists can be ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ extremists such as white supremacists, anti-
government militias or anarchists. Domestic terrorists can also be ‘single-issue’ groups such as animal
rights or environmental rights extremists. And, domestic terrorists can also be ‘lone wolves’ with a
personal agenda or grievance and prepares, commits violent acts alone outside of any group support.
According to FBI Director Senate testimony in July 2019, the bureau has recorded about 100 domestic
terrorism arrests since December 2018 compared to about 100 international terrorism arrests.92 The
FBI, according to the director’s testimony, is most concerned with “lone offender attacks, primarily
shootings.” Earlier, at a congressional hearing in May 2018, the head of the FBI counterterrorism
division testified that the bureau was investigating 850 domestic terrorism cases and of that
approximately 350 of the cases involved racially motivated violent extremists93. Most in that group, he
said, were white supremacists.
In 2015, the Seattle division of the FBI revealed 70-100 active cases possibly linked to terrorism across
the state.94 In the years since revealing the breadth of terrorism investigations in Washington State,
domestic terrorism arrests outpaced jihad-inspired terrorism arrests nationwide.95 The US government
acknowledged the problem in its October 2018 ‘National Strategy for Counterterrorism’. "Notably,
domestic terrorism in the United States is on the rise, with an increasing number of fatalities and violent
nonlethal acts committed by domestic terrorists against people and property," the strategy paper says.96
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
Terrorism events can be distinguished from other types of man-made hazards by three important
considerations:97
92 Zapotosky, Matt. July 23, 2019. Wray says FBI has recorded about 100 domestic terrorism arrests in fiscal 2019 and
many investigations involve white supremacy. The Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wray-says-fbi-has-recorded-about-100-domestic-terrorism-arrests-
in-fiscal-2019-and-most-investigations-involve-white-supremacy/2019/07/23/600d49a6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-
e73b603e7f38_story.html.
93 Zapotosky, Matt. July 23, 2019. Wray says FBI has recorded about 100 domestic terrorism arrests in fiscal 2019 and
many investigations involve white supremacy. The Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wray-says-fbi-has-recorded-about-100-domestic-terrorism-arrests-
in-fiscal-2019-and-most-investigations-involve-white-supremacy/2019/07/23/600d49a6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-
e73b603e7f38_story.html.
94 Kim, Hana. December 11, 2015. FBI investigating 70 to 100 cases in Washington State with possible ties to terrorism.
Q13 Fox News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://q13fox.com/2015/12/11/fbi-investigating-up-to-a-100-cases-
possibly-linked-to-terrorism-in-washington/.
95 Barrett, Devlin. March 9, 2019. Arrests in domestic terror probes outpace those inspired by Islamic extremis ts. The
Washington Post. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/arrests-
in-domestic-terror-probes-outpace-those-inspired-by-islamic-extremists/2019/03/08/0bf329b6-392f-11e9-a2cd-
307b06d0257b_story.html.
96 Dilanian, Ken. August 9, 2019. There is no law that covers 'domestic terrorism.' What would one look like? NBC
News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/there-no-law-covers-
domestic-terrorism-what-would-one-look-n1040386.
97 Mid-America Regional Council. 2015. Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.marc.org/Emergency-Services-9-1-1/pdf/2015HMPdocs/HMP2015_Sec4-HAZ-Terrorism.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
168
• In the case of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents, there presence may not be
immediately obvious, making it difficult to determine when and where they were released, who
was exposed, and what danger is present for first responders.
• Terrorist events evoke very strong emotional reactions, ranging from anxiety, to fear to anger,
to despair to depression.
• Even failed attacks have long-term economic impacts for the targeted government and critical
infrastructure sector disproportionate to the cost of the attack itself.
The form and locations of many natural hazards are identifiable and, even in some cases, predictable;
however, there is no defined geographic boundary for terrorism. Based on previous historical events, it
is presumed that critical facilities, services, and large gatherings of people are at higher risk.
King County is the most populous county within Washington State and is ranked 12th most-populous in
the US according to the US Census Bureau. King County is geographically diverse characterized by
high-density urbanization along the shores of Puget Sound, suburban communities to the east, and rural
communities to the southeast. King County is the largest labor market in the state. In 2018, nearly 42
percent of all nonfarm jobs in Washington State were reported from King County-located businesses.
Within King County, the Washington State Fusion Center tracks over 800 annual large-gatherings that
encompass public assembly and outdoor events. These events include a diverse range of sites that draw
large crowds of people for shopping, business, entertainment, sports or lodging, as well as for fireworks,
marathons, festivals and parades.
English-language terrorist media continues to identify similar gatherings as “soft targets” and promote
them as potential attack sites. For example, Inspire #12 magazine published online by Al Qaeda,
suggested targeting locations “flooded with individuals, e.g., sports events . . . election campaigns,
festivals, and other gathering [sic]. The important thing is that you target people and not buildings.”98
Attacks targeting these types of events will continue to present security challenges to public safety
personnel, because attendees are anonymous and generally unscreened for prohibited items. Violent
extremist propaganda continues to urge lone actors to attack soft targets using small arms, knives, and
vehicles because they are simple and effective. Foreign terrorist organizations implore followers to kill
with whatever means available “whether an explosive device, a bullet, a knife, a car, a rock, or even a
boot or a fist.”99
Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, there were less than a dozen major terrorist events in
Washington State. Since then, violent extremism has become commonplace, on a global and national
98 National Counterterrorism Center. 2018. Planning and Preparedness Can Promote an Effective Re sponse to a
Terrorist Attack at Open-Access Events. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/First-Responders-Toolbox---Planning-
Promotes-Effective-Response-to-Open-Access-Events.pdf.
99 Farivar, Masood. July 18, 2016. New, Low-tech Terror Tactics Simple and Deadly. Voice of America. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.voanews.com/europe/new-low-tech-terror-tactics-simple-and-deadly.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
169
scale, and the number of local terrorism and violent extremism cases continue to rise.100 Some of the
most notorious terror cases in Washington State include the arrest of Ahmed Ressam, the “Millennium
Bomber,” in December 1999, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) firebombing of University of
Washington’s (UW) horticulture center in May 2001, and the foiled Seattle Military Entrance Processing
Station attack plot in 2011.
• On March 26, 2018, Thanh Cong Phan from Everett was arrested after mailing at least 11
suspicious packages to multiple military and government facilities in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area, which contained potential destructive devices. He was charged with shipping
of explosive materials, after the packages were found to contain small amounts of black
explosive powder.101
• On March 31, 2017, Muna Osman Jama of Reston VA and Hinda Osman Dhirane of Kent WA
were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years respectively, after being found guilty of conspiracy to
provide material support to al-Shabaab. The two reportedly organized an all-female fundraising
group, called the “Group of Fifteen,” who provided monthly payments to al-Shabaab;
facilitating and tracking money sent through conduits in Kenya and Somalia.102
• On August 25, 2017, Melvin Neifert from Selah was arrested and charged with receiving
incendiary explosive device materials—specifically, potassium nitrate and other materials to
make a potassium nitrate-sugar bomb—that were to be used in connection with the 2016 May
Day events. Federal authorities seized evidence and questioned Neifert on May 1, the same day
anti-capitalist demonstrations took place in Seattle.103
• On September 4, 2016, a fire was intentionally set at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman,
WA. Authorities recovered a video from inside the clinic showing a flammable object had been
thrown through the window. While no injuries were reported, and no suspects identified, there
is a history of domestic terrorism against the Pullman clinic.104
• On April 9, 2015, Blake Heger was arrested after attempting to place two shrapnel-laden pipe
bombs near a high foot-traffic area outside a hardware store in Puyallup, WA. Police were called
after a concerned citizen saw him sharpening large knifes in the parking lot. He was found with
100 United Nations Development Programme. 2016. Prevent Violent Extremism Through Promoting Inclusive
Development, Tolerance and Respect for Diversity. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.undp.org/content/dam/norway/undp-ogc/documents/Discussion%20Paper%20-
%20Preventing%20Violent%20Extremism%20by%20Promoting%20Inclusive%20%20Development.pdf .
101 Shayanian, Sara. March 28, 2018. Man charged with sending explosives to D.C. military sites. United Press Internationa.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/28/Man-charged-with-sending-
explosives-to-DC-military-sites/5591522255789/.
102 Department of Justice. Friday, March 31, 2017. Two Women Sentenced for Providing Material Support to Terroris ts.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-women-sentenced-providing-material-support-
terrorists.
103 Meyers, Donald W. August 31, 2016. Bail decision delayed in Selah explosives case. The Seattle Times. Accessed online
on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/bail-decision-delayed-in-selah-explosives-case/.
104 The Associated Press. September 10, 2015. Video shows object thrown in Planned Parenthood arson. The Seattle
Times. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/video-shows-object-thrown-in-
planned-parenthood-arson-in-pullman/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
170
two additional pipe-bombs, four large knives, and a screwdriver that he had sharpened into a
dagger.105
• On January 1, 2014, Musab Masmari attempted to set fire to a gay nightclub on Capitol Hill in
Seattle, WA by spilling gasoline down a set of stairs and lighting it, while 750 people packed the
club's New Year’s Eve event. According to investigative documents, Masmari told a friend that
“homosexuals should be exterminated.” In July 2014, he was sentenced to ten years in federal
prison for arson.106
• On July 18, 2014, Ali Muhammad Brown was arrested after killing four people in WA and a
college student in NJ, as part of a personal vengeance against the U.S. government for its
actions in the Middle East. In 2004, he was arrested and prosecuted for his role in a bank fraud
scheme to finance fighters traveling abroad, and had known links to a disrupted terror cell in
Seattle, WA and Bly, OR in 1999.107
• On October 27, 2012, Abdisalan Hussein Ali, a 22-year old born in Somalia but raised in Seattle
and Minnesota, was the third American killed as an al-Shabaab suicide bomber in Mogadishu.
Ali was reportedly one of two bombers in an attack that killed “scores of African Union
peacekeepers.” He arrived in Seattle in 2000 and moved to Minneapolis before being recruited
into al-Shabaab and travelling to Somalia in 2008.108
• On September 8, 2011, Michael McCright was arrested and charged with second-degree assault
for a July 2011 incident where he intentionally swerved his vehicle at a government-plated
vehicle occupied by two U.S. Marines in Seattle. Known on the Internet as “Mikhail Jihad,”
McCright had ties to Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, a man convicted of plotting to kill federal
employees and military recruits in Seattle, WA.109
• On June 22, 2011, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh were arrested for planning to
attack the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Seattle with machine guns and
grenades after previously planning, but discounting, an attack at Joint Base Lewis McChord
(JBLM). According to FBI investigators, “Abdul-Latif said that ‘jihad’ in America should be a
‘physical jihad,’ and not just ‘media jihad’.”110
• On May 11, 2011, Joseph Brice of Clarkston WA was arrested for assembling, practicing, and
detonating explosive devices after an incident that occurred on April 18, 2010, when an
105 McCarty, Kevin. August 10, 2015. Man arrested after 2 bombs discovered outside Pierce County hardware store.
KIRO 7. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.kiro7.com/news/man-arrested-after-two-bombs-discovered-
outside-pi/28802706.
106 Carter, Mike. July 31, 2014. Man who set fire in Capitol Hill nightclub sentenced to 10 years. The Seattle Times.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-who-set-fire-in-capitol-hill-
nightclub-sentenced-to-10-years/.
107 Collins, Laura. September 18, 2014. Revealed, one man's terrifying 'jihad' on U.S. soil: Extremist 'executed four in
revenge for American attacks in the Middle East and carried out bank fraud for the Cause'. Daily Mail Online. Accessed
online on 8/26/19 from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759901/Revealed-terrifying-one-man-jihad-U-S-
soil-Extremist-executed-four-revenge-American-attacks-Middle-East-carried-bank-fraud-Cause.html.
108 Kron, Josh. October 30, 2011. American Identified as Bomber in Attack on African Union in Somalia . The New York
Times. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/world/africa/shabab-identify-
american-as-bomber-in-somalia-attack.html?_r=0.
109 Carter, Mike. May 29, 2012. Felon admits he tried to run Marines off I-5. The Seattle Times. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/felon-admits-he-tried-to-run-marines-off-i-5/.
110 The Associated Press. June 5, 2012. Seattle terror suspect wants evidence tossed. Fox News. Accessed online on
8/26/19 from https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-terror-suspect-wants-evidence-tossed#ixzz28jz1MkOE.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
171
explosive device he made prematurely ignited, causing him significant injuries. He had a
YouTube channel called “Strength of Allah,” where he posted the videos in an attempt to
support terrorism.111
• On January 17, 2011, Kevin Harpham, an admitted white supremacist, placed a remote-
controlled backpack improvised explosive device (IED), with rat-poison coated shrapnel, at a
park bench near the marching route on the morning of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Parade
in Spokane, WA. Prosecutors said the device was “constructed with a clear, lethal purpose,” and
Harpham said it was intended to protest social concepts, such as unity and multiculturalism.112
Scenario Drivers
Terrorist attacks continue to take place at open-access events, mass gatherings, and outside the
perimeter of secured events, possibly because of a perceived lack of security, the availability of
publicized schedules, and largely unrestricted admittance. Examples of open-access events include
marathons, parades, protests, rallies, festivals, fireworks displays, farmers markets, and high-profile
funerals and vigils or memorials. Terrorists could also target gatherings located close to ticketed events,
such as tailgating adjacent to major sporting events or concerts113. Judging from previous terrorist plots
and attacks, terrorists will likely remain interested in conducting opportunistic attacks against civilian
targets, most notably mass gatherings. Techniques used in recent terror attacks have included the use of
vehicles as weapons, edged weapons, small arms, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Coordinated
Domestic
Extremist
Attack on
Seattle
The radicalization of Pacific Northwest extremist groups has recently been promoted by
other national terrorism movements which have called for violent resistance to destroy
human life and disable critical infrastructure. Radicalization starts to build in the Winter of
2018. Over the next six months there is an increase in expression of on-line animosity
towards the U.S. Government which calls for action on June 24. In recent weeks there
has been an increase via social media of on-line extremist groups indicating an intense
animosity and a belief of injustice by the U.S. Government. These local online indicators
show lone actors, inspired by extremist ideology, have been able to circumvent security
measures to take up small arms, make vehicle borne and rudimentary standalone
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with the stated intent to attack the Region. In
addition, there are calls for “Leaderless Resistance” making it difficult to locate, mitigate,
or prevent their stated intent. Within the Seattle Region, there is increasing concern about
a number of these groups starting to influence public opinion, which may lead to violent
actions. The on-line information promotes and warms of the need for longer and ongoing
111 Pignolet, Jennifer. Wednesday, June 12, 2013. Clarkston man convicted of trying to aid terrorists The Spokane
Spokesman-Review. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jun/12/bomb-maker-
sentenced/.
112 Clouse, Thomas. December 20, 2011. MLK bomb maker gets 32 years in prison. The Spokane Spokesman-Review.
Accessed online on 8/26/19 from https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/20/mlk-parade-bomber-seeks-
guilty-plea-withdrawal/.
113 National Counterterrorism Center. 2018. Planning and Preparedness Can Promote an Effective Response to a
Terrorist Attack at Open-Access Events. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/First-Responders-Toolbox---Planning-
Promotes-Effective-Response-to-Open-Access-Events.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
172
acts of violence to achieve superiority over current government authority. On July 3, there
are several online attacks which a precursor to the July 4th physical attacks on an iconic
building are, multiple active shooter events, vehicle borne violence and IEDs, and
unattended small items across the City of Seattle and surrounding areas.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Public events
Terrorists have increasingly targeted mass-gatherings in densely populated or
high profile areas. Consequently any major urban area in Washington State
could be considered at-risk as well as any crowded or high profile critical
infrastructure. The specific motivations of terrorists will largely dictate target
selection.
Terror tactics used by
non-terrorists
A new challenge that is emerging is the increasing use of terror tactics by
non-terrorists. A number of evolved weapons, tactics, and targets have
emerged through the sheer volume of attacks within the last decade. This
normalization of violence has been further exacerbated by extensive media
coverage and the ease by which detailed instruction manuals, ‘how-to’
videos, and online forums dedicated to weapons, explosives, and tactics. It is
“essentially shared community content, easily accessible for extremists of all
stripes to consume and put into action” including those with no affiliation to
foreign or domestic extremism ideologies.114 Lessons learned from past
attempts continue to shape the means by which attackers develop plots—the
push for using small arms, edged-weapons and vehicle ramming against soft
targets—instead of the often failed large-scale attacks.
Critical infrastructure
Infrastructure systems such as dams, water systems, bridges, and public
buildings are high-value targets to terrorists that both stand for government
order and, when lost, can cause significant regional harm to people, property,
and the economy.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents Any King County resident attending a public event could be a victim of a terrorist attack.
Vulnerable
populations
Some populations are more likely to be targeted by extremists than others. Terrorist
attacks and attempted attacks in the northwest have been motivated by white supremacy
(targeting non-white populations), xenophobia (targeting immigrants),
homophobia/transphobia (targeting gathering places of gay, lesbian, and transgendered
people), and anti-religious attacks against Muslims, Jews, Christians, or other religious
groups.
114 Johnson, Bridget. March 21, 2018. The Austin bomber and our new age of open-source terrorism: How Mark
Anthony Conditt likely benefited from Al Qaeda tutorials. The New York Daily News. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/austin-bomber-new-age-open-source-terrorism-article-1.3888244.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
173
Property Property, including commercial buildings, venues, vehicles, places of worship, or other
areas are often damaged or destroyed during terror incidents. Trauma from the incident
can prevent the rebuilding of the facility in the same place.
The economy In addition to the economic costs of stepped-up security, attacks can have a huge impact
on a region’s economy. Places seen as less safe are less attractive to investors or visitors.
Often, terrorist attacks attempt to destroy part of the economy by killing tourists or
destroying an important piece of infrastructure.
The
environment
A major attack can pollute the environment and poison water and food sources. This can
have far-reaching, long-term consequences and damage animal and plant life as well as
people.
Health
systems
Health systems can be impacted as a target for attacks, by being overwhelmed with
patients in the aftermath of attacks, and by personnel being injured or killed from
secondary attacks or due to exposure to chemical or biological agents used in the attack.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Government facilities and employees are a common target for anti-government
extremists. These attacks can disrupt day-to-day operations for long periods of time and
require additional security measures to protect facilities and employees.
Responders Responders are often the first on the scene of an incident and therefore can be injured or
killed in shootings or due to exposure of chemical or biological agents. Responder
facilities, such as police stations, are also potential terrorist targets.
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Energy facilities, including fuel pipelines, are common targets for
terrorists and saboteurs around the world. Many power facilities, such as
neighborhood substations, are relatively unguarded and, if lost, can have
immediate impacts on people and property in an area. Cyber-attacks are one area
where a large-scale attack on the energy system could cause widespread
disruption.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems are considered a high-impact potential target.
A chemical attack on a water system, if not immediately detected, could injure or
kill thousands, depending on the size of the water-system targeted.
• Transportation: transportation systems, especially public transit, have been targets
around the world, such as in the Madrid Train Bombings or the London Subway
Bombings. Attacks on busses are also common. These incidents can cause a loss
in public confidence in the transit system. Furthermore, an attack on a tunnel,
such as the I-90 tunnel across Lake Washington, can impede mobility in our
region over the long-term.
• Communications: Communications infrastructure, such as cell towers, are
relatively redundant and so somewhat less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. There is
a huge vulnerability, however, to cyber-terrorism, which can take multiple
facilities offline quickly.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
174
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
A failure to protect the public from a terrorist attack, even one that is thwarted at the last
moment, can cause a total failure in public confidence in government. As seen after
9/11/2001 or after attacks by white supremacists against African-American or Jewish
congregations, groups begin to feel isolated, threatened, and isolated from the
community. This is especially true in cases where government fails to quickly reassure
impacted communities and support them morally and with security resources.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
175
Regional Risk Profile: Tsunami and Seiche
Hazard Description
A tsunami is a series of fast, powerful, and destructive waves that radiate outward in all directions from
the source. Tsunamis are usually caused by a displacement of the ocean floor from an earthquake or the
collapse of an underwater land feature. Seiches are waves that form in any enclosed or semi-enclosed
body of water (i.e. lakes, bays, and rivers) from wind, atmospheric pressure, or seismic waves. Seiche
action can also affect harbors and canals.
The primary tsunami threat in King County is from a Seattle fault earthquake, or other events
originating in the Puget Sound Lowlands (such as big landslides into the water and possibly other faults).
Not all of King County has been modeled for tsunami hazards but scientists are actively working on it.
The tsunami inundation (flooding) impacts from a magnitude 7.3 Seattle fault event are shown below in
yellow:115 In addition to the Seattle fault, a Pacific ocean sourced tsunami, like a Cascadia Subduction
Zone event, can still affect King County. Wave arrival times for a Seattle fault and Cascadia-derived
tsunami are extremely different. In a Seattle fault event, the first wave arrives within minutes, where in a
Cascadia event, the first wave will arrive in approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. In both cases, wave
action will persist for multiple hours. An earthquake on the Seattle Fault could generate a seiche in Lake
Washington or Lake
Sammamish that could
impact cities including
Sammamish, Kenmore,
and Kirkland.
There can also be
significant maritime
hazard along the western
United States’ coastlines
associated with smaller
tsunamis. A tsunami from
a local Seattle fault event
would cause major
damage to port
infrastructure and
navigational terminals.
Additionally, powerful
distant tsunamis generated
across the Pacific Ocean
115 Washington Geologic Survey. Geologic Hazards Information Portal. Accessed online on 6/11/19 from
https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
176
can cause maritime hazards in the Puget Sound. Although these distant-sourced events generate
relatively smaller tsunamis than local-sourced events, there waves can still cause damage to boats, docks,
piers, and aids to navigation (e.g. channel markers, lighthouses, warehouses and port terminals used for
loading and unloading cargo ships). Moored boats and vessels underway in the harbor may also be
impacted by smaller distant-sourced tsunamis. For example, the 2011 earthquake off the coast of Japan
caused a relatively small eight-foot tsunami in Crescent City, California, which led to one hundred
million dollars in damaged boats and infrastructure. Anything near the shoreline that has the potential to
float or be moved by the wall of water can be carried away – ramming into other structures.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County includes the deep-water Port of Seattle and several cities that border Puget Sound,
including Shoreline, Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, and Federal Way. Together with Vashon Island,
unincorporated King County includes a great deal of industry, import/export activity, and commercial
and residential real estate that border bodies of water. These key waterfront areas are vulnerable to a
tsunami or seiche generated from an earthquake up to hundreds, if not thousands of miles distant from
King County.
The most significant documented risks are to port transportation and industrial facilities in the Seattle
waterfront and Magnolia. It is likely a tsunami would impact docks, harbors, and other water-dependent
facilities in communities such as Des Moines and Burien too. The consequences of a tsunami to the
Port of Seattle would likely be catastrophic, causing permanent to semi-permanent harm to the region’s
economy. As described in the earthquake chapter, damage from the Kobe, Japan earthquake in 1995 led
to a permanent reduction in the scale and importance of that port.
The table below summarizes the identified tsunami hazard area, the City of Seattle, following a
magnitude 7.3 Seattle fault earthquake. Approximately 0.6 percent of structures within the city are
exposed to a Seattle fault earthquake-induced tsunami, totaling an estimated value of $5.1 billion (3.5
percent of the total building value within the city). 116 The modeling to show potential impacts from a
Seattle fault tsunami or a Cascadia tsunami for the remaining communities in King County is not yet
complete.
City of Seattle Tsunami Exposure Assessment – Seattle Fault Scenario
STRUCTURES EXPOSED EXPOSED BUILDING AND CONTENT VALUE PERCENT OF EXPOSED VALUE
969 $5.1 Billion 3.5%
Geologic evidence of previous shallow crustal fault-induced tsunami events has been recorded in the
Puget Sound at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island and at West Point in Seattle.117 This evidence suggests
the last tsunami occurred around 900 AD when the local Seattle fault raised some landmasses around
116 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. King County Risk Report: Tsunami Exposure Assessment. Page 58.
117 Moore, Andrew. Looking for paleotsunami evidence: an example from Cultus Bay, Washington. Accessed online on
6/11/19 from https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/workshops/risk_resilience/activities/82019.html .
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
177
the Puget Sound shoreline by as much as 26 feet. A scientific study focused on seismic activity on the
Seattle fault within the last 8,000 years found evidence for an additional earthquake that occurred
~6,900 years ago. This suggests a low probability of a large earthquake to occur on the Seattle fault as
the recurrence interval could be thousands of years. Since 900 AD, tsunami waves in King County have
been less than 18 inches in height and caused little damage to boats and shoreline property.118
Additional verbal accounts among the Snohomish Tribe reported by Colin Tweddell in 1953 described a
great landslide-induced wave caused by the collapse of Camano Head at the south end of Camano
Island around the 1820s.119 No injuries have been reported since the settlement of Seattle in the 18th
century. The value and density of property along the waterfront suggests a potential for moderate
impacts from such an event.
Multiple seiches have been generated in King County from various local and distant seismic events.
Seiche events in the King County have been noted in the following years: 1) In 1891 two earthquakes
near Port Angeles caused water in the Puget Sound to surge onto beaches two feet above the high-water
mark and an eight-foot seiche in Lake Washington. 2) In 1906 the magnitude 7.9 San Francisco
earthquake caused agitated wave activity on the west shore of Lake Washington “so violently that house
boats, floats and bathhouses were jammed and tossed about like leaves on the water,” reported by the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (4/19/1906). 3) In 1949, a magnitude-7.1 deep earthquake occurred in
Olympia that caused seiches within Lake Union and Lake Washington, but no damages were reported.
4) The magnitude 9.2 Great Alaska earthquake of 1964 created global seiches, including in Lake Union
that damaged houseboats, buckled moorings, and broke water and sewer lines. 5) In 1965, a magnitude
6.5 deep earthquake occurred in the Puget Sound which caused a seiche where water “sloshing back and
forth like soup in a shallow bowl” was observed at Green Lake, North Seattle (reported by the Seattle
Times, 4/30/1965). 6) Lastly, in 2002 a magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake caused seiches in Lake Union
that damaged houseboats, buckled moorings, and broke water and sewer lines.
Tsunamis generated along the Pacific Rim have a hard time reaching Puget Sound with any destructive
force. The tsunamis generated by the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan and the 1964 magnitude
9.2 earthquake in Alaska did reach Puget Sound, but the maximum wave height recorded was only 0.04
meters (~2 inches) and 0.12 meters, respectively in (~5 inches) in King County.
118 National Geophysical Data Center / World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): Global Historical Tsunami Database.
National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA. doi:10.7289/V5PN93H7 [accessed online on 09/11/2019 from
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=70&d=7]
119 Koshimura, Shunichi and Harold O. Mofjeld. 2001. Inundation modeling of local tsunamis in Puget Sound,
Washington due to potential earthquakes. ITS 2001 Proceedings, Session 7, Number 7 -18. Accessed online on 6/11/19
from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/docs/ITS2001/7-18_Koshimura.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
178
Tsunami Scenario Drivers120121
There are four likely triggers for a tsunami in King County. These include an earthquake on the Seattle
Fault, an earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a tsunami caused by a major landslide into
Puget Sound or another major body of water, and an earthquake on the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction
Zone.
Seattle Fault
Tsunami
A tsunami triggered by a rupture of the Seattle Fault would compound damage caused
by the initial earthquake. It would devastate low-lying areas of Puget Sound, but
especially the port and industrial facilities around the Port of Seattle and Magnolia.
Preliminary modeling suggests the first wave arrives within 2 and a half minutes after
the earthquake starts at the Magnolia Bluff area of Seattle and all coastlines within
Elliott Bay experience an average of 20 feet (6 meters) of inundation above Mean
High Water during the first 10 minutes. Harbor Island also experiences major flooding
with at least 13 feet (4 meters) of flow depth above the ground level. South of Elliott
Bay has milder flooding compared to Seattle, but strong currents are prevalent at
Portage Bay.
Cascadia
Subduction
Zone Tsunami
A Cascadia Subduction Zone tsunami would devastate the outer coast and seriously
impact low-lying areas around Everett and the San Juan Islands. The islands and the
strait of Juan de Fuca protect King County from the worst flooding impacts.
Preliminary modeling suggests that little inundation would occur along the coastline of
South King county, though some flooding may be expected in areas of Seattle SODO
and Port. The worst flooding is expected to occur at Portage Bay with estimated wave
amplitudes up to 13 feet (4 meters) above Mean High Water. Strong currents are also
estimated at Portage Bay near spits of land and in the narrows, which can be
hazardous to the maritime community. The first wave is expected to reach Seattle at
approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. Statewide, this tsunami is expected to cause
over 15,000 fatalities, primarily in coastal communities in the outer coast counties.
Landslide
Tsunami
Verbal accounts among the Snohomish Tribe reported by Colin Tweddell in 1953
describe a great landslide-induced wave caused by the collapse of Camano Head at the
south end of Camano Island around the 1820s. The slide itself is said to have buried a
small village, and the resulting tsunami drowned people who were clamming on Hat
120 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
121 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
179
(Gedney) Island, 2 miles to the south. Bathymetry between Camano Head and Hat
Island could have contributed to the size and destructive power of the wave.122
Alaska-Aleutian
Distant Source
Tsunami
An Alaskan-Aleutian subduction zone earthquake can be as large as a magnitude 9.2
event, as experienced in 1964. A tsunami generated from Alaska is a distant-sourced
tsunami for Washington state. The preliminary tsunami modeling results for a
potential worst-case scenario magnitude 9.2 Alaska earthquake to King County is
estimated to be somewhat similar to the Cascadia Subduction Zone event, but half as
strong. The highest wave amplitudes can be up to 7 feet (2 meters) and predicted to
occur inside Portage Bay, but not predicted to overtop the northern spit. Additionally,
it is probable for some unsafe currents for the maritime community to occur, with the
highest risk being at Portage Bay. The first wave is expected to reach Seattle’s coastline
approximately 6 hours after the earthquake.
Lake
Washington or
Lake
Sammamish
Seiche
A Seattle Fault earthquake could generate a seiche on Lake Washington that would
impact low-lying areas of cities along the lake, including Sammamish, Kenmore,
Kirkland, and others.
Priority Vulnerabilities
Port and harbor facilities Tsunamis are expected to devastate near-shore port infrastructure, boats, and
piers. This is the largest economic consequence of a tsunami.
Low-lying and waterfront
homes and businesses
Homes and businesses along the many waterfronts would be damaged or
destroyed by a mid-sized tsunami and devastated by a local crustal
earthquake and tsunami.
Wastewater treatment
facilities
West Point treatment plan is in the inundation zone for a Seattle Fault
tsunami. Historical records also suggest tsunamis have impacted this area
before.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
While it would take a rather sizable tsunami along the shoreline of King County,
precautionary evacuations from houseboats, live aboard pleasure craft, cruise ships, and
property immediately adjacent to waterfronts of Puget Sound and lakes Washington,
Sammamish, and lake Union may be recommended.
122 Koshimura, Shunichi and Harold O. Mofjeld. 2001. Inundation modeling of local tsunamis in Puget Sound,
Washington due to potential earthquakes. ITS 2001 Proceedings, Session 7, Number 7 -18. Accessed online on 6/11/19
from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/docs/ITS2001/7-18_Koshimura.pdf.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
180
Vulnerable
populations
There are no additional anticipated direct impacts from tsunami to vulnerable
populations. As always, any disruption to services, the economy, and infrastructure would
cause more harm to lower-income and marginalized communities.
Property Tsunami and seiche threats were not defined until recently. Most of the early 19th and
20th century structures located near the water were probably not engineered to withstand
impacts from a tsunami, seiche, or earthquake. The properties along the entire Seattle
Waterfront and those in Shoreline, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Vashon Island are at
risk from tsunami activity.
The economy A tsunami or seiche that impacts port facilities, such as one triggered by the Seattle Fault
would have any sizable impact on the economy of the region. Damage would run
potentially in the billions and have far-reaching consequences for Washington’s export-
based economy.
The
environment
It is possible for a tsunami or seiche to have an impact on the natural environment
immediately adjacent to Puget Sound through the release of fuels and hazardous materials
or their storage facilities around the waterfront. This may include fish habitat or natural
and farmed shellfish beds, wetlands, estuaries, and marsh areas.
Health
systems There are no major health centers located in the mapped tsunami inundation areas.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
It is possible that Sounder traffic between Everett and Seattle or Tacoma and Seattle
could be impacted by any large tsunami in Puget Sound. Otherwise, it is unlikely that
King County governmental operations would be directly impacted by a tsunami or seiche.
Responders Along the shoreline of King County, precautionary evacuations from houseboats, live
aboard pleasure crafts, cruise ships, and property immediately adjacent to waterfronts of
Puget Sound and lakes Washington, Sammamish, and Lake Union would cause impacts
to the public. The volume of search and rescue efforts along waterfronts affected from
the tsunami may pose potential issues to first responders (police, fire, EMS).There are
only small number of scenarios where this is a likely issue.
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Little to no impact directly from tsunami is expected.
• Water/Wastewater: Tsunami may impact the West Point treatment plant. The
damage would depend on the height of the tsunami and a significant event would
be required. If such an event were to occur, the plan would be rendered
inoperable.
• Transportation: damage to port facilities and ferry terminals are the primary
threat to infrastructure from a tsunami. Even relatively small tsunami surges, such
as the aforementioned example from Crescent City, have caused tens of millions
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
181
of dollars. Damage to low-lying rail and roads is also likely, but less of a concern
since it would not impact primary transportation routes.
• Communications: There is limited risk to communications systems as a whole
from tsunami.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Coverage from major news outlets, including the Seattle Times and the New Yorker
magazine, have argued that Washington is highly underprepared for a major seismic event
large enough to generate a tsunami. Both media coverage and reports from state
emergency management has led Washington’s governor to convene a Resilient
Washington Subcommittee to look into mitigation actions out of concern for the
apparent low-level of public confidence in state and local ability to manage major
disasters. Data is available from Japan and New Zealand that clearly demonstrate that
policy level decisions and direct communication to the public will greatly influence the
public confidence in King County government.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
182
Regional Risk Profile: Volcano
Hazard Description
Volcanic eruptions are the result of geological activity, and may include lava, rock fragments, gases, and
ash ejected from a vent on the surface. Deposits of rock, lava, and ash create the structures we call
volcanoes. Washington State has five active volcanoes, four of which have been classified as “Very
high” threat by the U.S. Geological Survey, and one considered “High” threat. Mount Rainier would
cause the most significant local disruptions in the event of an eruption, but any of them could cause
major disruptions due to ash or impacts on the transportation system.
Volcanoes can lie dormant for hundreds or thousands of years between eruptions. Hazards from
eruptions are typically divided into near-volcano hazards, those which impact areas immediately on the
slopes of the volcano, and distant hazards, which can put areas miles away from the volcano at risk.
Near-volcano hazards include pyroclastic flows (hot avalanches of gas, ash, and rock fragments), lava
flows, rock (tephra), debris flows, and landslides. Distant hazards, include Lahars – volcanic mudflows,
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
183
and volcanic ash. Lahars may travel tens of miles down river valleys, picking up debris and inundating
floodplains, and leave a cement-like deposit of sediment where they stop. They are a hazard at all five of
Washington’s volcanoes, and the only personal protective action available to avoid a lahar is evacuation
to higher ground. Volcanic ash – made up of tiny particles of glass – may be extremely widespread, as it
travels in the direction of the wind. The fine particles may travel hundreds of miles or more downwind.
Even in tiny quantities, volcanic ash can be very disruptive, as it lowers air quality, makes roads slippery
to drive on, is abrasive, poses risks to aircraft, motor vehicles and electronics, and is extremely difficult
to clean up, as it easily remobilizes into the air. Volcanic ash is also dense, and quite heavy when wet – 4
inches of wet volcanic ash is heavy enough to collapse most roofs.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
There are multiple hazards from a volcano, including lahars that could impact communities in the south
of the county to ash that could impact the entire region and come from any of Washington’s five active
volcanoes.
Lahars, mudflows that can have the consistency of wet cement, are historically the most damaging
element of a volcanic eruption. These flows pick up large and small debris like trees, houses, boulders –
anything in its path. Lahars can move 20-40 miles per hour down slopes. They slow down once they
reach floodplains, but are still an unstoppable mass of mud and debris, often pushing a flow of water
ahead of it. While the lahar risk to King County is limited to a major eruption of Mt. Rainier and
impacts primarily the cities of Algona, Pacific, and Auburn, the regional impacts would include a
complete disruption of regional transportation routes, including through airport closures, damage to I-5,
and damage to the Port of Tacoma.
The best examples of potential local damages from volcanic activity are from the Mt. St. Helens
eruption in 1980. This eruption had significant ash-fall over eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Montana, with trace amounts falling over the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, and
Minnesota as well as Canadian provinces. A long history of volcanic eruptions in the cascades is
recorded by the Native Americans in the area. Volcanic activity occurs in geological timelines these
events are spaced over hundreds if not thousands of years, during which time the number of exposed
inhabitants and inventory of infrastructure has changed greatly. Even the difference between 1980 and
today (39 years) has seen a marked increase in population and infrastructure in the possible impact area
for volcanic activity. The Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 damaged or destroyed 200 buildings, ruined 44
bridges, and buried 17 miles of railway along with 125 miles of roadway. Community water supplies and
sewer systems were disabled and reservoirs partly filled with silt and debris.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
184
Mt. Rainier, however, is much closer (60 miles to Seattle) and poses a much more direct threat. Modern
Mount Rainier started erupting 500,000 years ago and has had numerous eruptions and mudflows since
then. About 5,600 years ago, an eruption created a massive debris avalanche, called the Osceola
Mudflow, poured down from the summit of Mount Rainier, picking up sediment and anything else in its
path as it traveled down the White River valley and into the Puget Sound. The mudflow filled valleys
with up to ~400 feet of sediment and moved at speeds of 40 to 50 miles an hour. Following the Osceola
Mudflow, many smaller volcanic eruptions and lahars occurred as the volcano continued to show signs
of unrest. The most recent major mudflow, called the Electron Mudflow, began as a part of a crater
collapse and traveled
down the Puyallup River
into Sumner in ~1502. It
is estimated that Mount
Rainier has generated
about 60 of these lahars in
the last 10,000 years, with
about 10 large enough to reach the Puget Sound. Many communities, including Orting, Puyallup, and
Auburn, between Mount Rainier and the Puget Sound are built on top of these deposits. 123
An eruption of Mt. Rainier, or any other Cascade volcano, is likely to be preceded by warning signs,
such as series of earthquakes, and deformation of the volcano. This volcanic “unrest” may last for days
before an eruption, or possibly for weeks, to months, to years or more. Monitoring networks are in
place to provide advanced warning. This advance warning is critical to communities downstream from
the volcanoes, because Even a relatively small eruption could melt glaciers significantly, generating
lahars that will reach heavily populated areas.124
A lahar should not be seen as a singular event, but a mass movement of sediment requiring significant
time to recover from. Deposition of feet to tens of feet of sediment through a watershed and over a
floodplain creates long-term changes to the river environment. After a lahar, mitigation measures may
be necessary to prevent continued sedimentation over the decades following the eruption, such as the
sediment retention structure built following the Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption. In lieu of this solution,
dredging may be required to prevent shipping channels from filling with sediment. Deposition of a large
amount of sediment within a floodplain may also change floodplains to a point where floods now occur
in areas which were previously safe from flooding.
123 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Volcano Risk Assessment, page
470-472.
124 United States Geologic Survey. 2018. USGS Volcano Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/12/19 from
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mount_rainier/geo_hist_future_eruptions.html.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
185
Summary of Hazard Effects
Major types of volcanic hazard, their effects and extents are listed in the table below. The occurrence
and scale of volcanic hazards are inversely related, with small events occurring more frequently (10-20 a
month), and larger events occurring every hundred years or so.125
Hazard Threat to Life Threat to Property Areas Affected
Ash and tephra fall
Low except near vent;
high for aviation
Depends on size of
particles and amount of
ash; can
lead to roof collapse,
bomb damage, fire
Local, Regional,
National, International
Pyroclastic flows
Very high – Near vent and
on slopes; low in King
County
Very high Local, Regional, National,
Lava flows
Low except near vent. Very High Local
Lahars High to moderate High Local, Regional
Flooding (post-lahar) Moderate High Regional
Gases/acid rain Low to moderate Moderate Local, Regional
Priority Vulnerabilities126
Communities in the path
of lahar hazards
Communities in the vicinity of Rainier, including the King County
communities of Algona, Pacific, and Auburn, are most vulnerable from a
large lahar generated by an eruption of Mt. Rainier.
Populations vulnerable to
respiratory distress
brought on by ash
Ash from any volcanic eruption can lead to disruption of daily life and is a
major threat to people with medical vulnerabilities.
125 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Volcano Risk Assessment, page
463
126 Clark County Emergency Management. 2007. 2006 Volcanic Ashfall Exercise After Action Report / Impr ovement
Plan.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
186
Populations in the
immediate vicinity of a
volcano
Populations that use Mt. Rainier National Park or work in the area around
the mountain are most susceptible to the immediate impacts. Although
advanced warning is likely, it will be impossible to predict the exact moment
of eruption. Residents from the town of Orting have approximately 45-
minutes to evacuate following activation of their lahar sirens.
Roof collapse caused by
ash fall Buildings can collapse following large ash accumulation.
Electrical systems and the
energy sector
Electrical systems may short out due to ashfall and power generation can be
curtailed as generation systems are shut off to protect sensitive components.
Communications
equipment
Communications equipment has the same vulnerability as general electrical
systems and is subject to failure due to ash damage.
Air travel Airports would likely be closed for the duration of major ash dispersal.
Roads and transportation
systems
Traffic signals would likely short out during ashfall. Ash is also creates a very
slippery driving surface. Ash can also damage vehicle engines, and scratch
windshields when wipers are being used – Driving is not recommended
during heavy ashfall.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
Cities in the south of the county, including Algona, Pacific, Auburn, and Kent all may be
impacted by a lahar. The sedimentation zone spreads throughout the Green River Valley.
This area includes some of the largest and fastest-growing cities in the county. The
distance from Mt. Rainier makes direct impact of eruption from a pyroclastic event
extremely unlikely. Prevailing winds make ash fall in the county unlikely or at least minor.
Lava flows and landslide activity would impact Pierce County but are unlikely to reach
any portion of inhabited King County. Indirect impacts from a major eruption might
include a cooling climate from atmospheric suspended ash clouds but this too is unlikely.
Fine ash may cause regional health impacts – especially respiratory for the duration of ash
fall. Impact to vehicles and air handling systems in homes and work places may have an
employment impact to the King County population.
Vulnerable
populations
Impacts to individuals with access and functional needs will be extremely serious.
Transportation will be impacted, resulting in difficulty accessing appointments.
Individuals with chronic respiratory vulnerabilities will be most negatively impacted by
ash. While there are limited numbers of King County residents in the path of the lahar,
the communities that are most impacted have higher rates of disability and poverty than
the statewide average.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
187
Property The cities of Algona and Pacific are the most at risk from a Mt. Rainier lahar event, with
over 90 percent of their structures exposed to the lahar. While the percentage of
structures is not as high, the City of Auburn has the highest potential dollar-value losses.
Other damages would include the loss of HVAC and air filtration systems, electrical
systems shorting out, and the danger of roof collapse from ash accumulation since ash is
heavier than snow. Furthermore, following rains, ash hardens to a concrete-like
consistency, which can clog gutters and drains and cause them to fail or collapse.
Businesses that operate electronic systems will require decontamination rooms to prevent
ash from getting inside and damaging electrical equipment.
The economy Many of the impacts from a Mt. Rainier eruption to humans and the environment would
also impact the economy of King County. Aviation interruption would likely occur from
airborne ash. A lahar event would impact rail and port service from direct damages to
infrastructure like bridges, rails, and roadways, or from inaccessibility to ports. Ash would
cause interruption of all internal combustion engines or vehicles that require filters would
impact the workforce and movement of food and supplies as well as repair crews.
Abrasion from fine ash on all mechanical parts would cause longer term damages to
industrial operations and the ports. Health and respiratory issues would make both indoor
and outdoor professions difficult. Medical facilities and the patients that rely on them
would have difficulty operating. The cost of debris removal following a lahar would be
enormous, even similar to efforts from a major earthquake.
The
environment
Any significant volcanic activity on Mt. Rainier would have an impact to the environment.
Lava flows, tephra, ash, and lahar activity would directly impact birds, fish, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, trees, and vegetation. Sediment deposition would impact rivers that
support salmon and steelhead spawning. Debris and lahar may change the course of
rivers entirely. Lahars may cause hazardous materials releases that harm birds, fish and
other wildlife. Recreational use of ski areas and hiking trails would also be impacted. It
has been four decades, and Mt. St. Helens timber and wildlife have not yet returned to
pre-1980 levels.
Health
systems
Health systems would be impacted by an expected dramatic rise in demand for services as
ash causes people to seek care for respiratory distress. Health systems would also be
hindered by transportation system impacts. First responder vehicles should have air filters
changed every 35 miles during volcano ash events and there are not enough air filters on
hand to meet this requirement.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Potential impacts to county delivery of services from a Mt. Rainier eruption would be the
result of damages to infrastructure, equipment including machinery and vehicles,
inaccessibility to service areas, impedance to transportation routes used by the county
workforce, and health impacts to residents and the workforce. County services that might
be interrupted might include: Medic One response, King County Sheriff’s Office services
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
188
like 9-1-1 dispatch, search and rescue and marine or aviation unit response, adult
detention, solid waste and waste water services. Services provided by other government
agencies and basic service providers might include interruption of: power, phone and cell
phone service, emergency medical service, fire and law enforcement, water systems, and
health/medical facilities.
Responders Responder vehicles need regular air filter changes during ashfall. Air filters in the quantity
required are likely not available. Responders will also be taxed by high numbers of calls
and dangerous roads caused by slick ash.
Infrastructure
systems
• Power: Ash can short out electrical systems and cause widespread power failure.
Ash accumulation may also cause issues with power generation dams. Generation
facilities may be shut down to prevent damage to sensitive components.
• Water/Wastewater: Water systems, including reservoirs, could quickly clog with
ash, potentially polluting water supply.
• Transportation: volcanic ash is very slick and roadways would become
treacherous. Vehicles would need regular air filter replacements and there are not
sufficient air filters in the region to offset the need. Airports in the region would
have to close, potentially for months. Any lahar could potentially destroy major
transportation routes, including I-5. Traffic signal systems and communications
systems could short out due to ashfall.127
• Communications: Electrical and communication impact can be severely impacted
during ashfall. Ash getting into electrical systems can cause systems to short out.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
The 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption revealed that even heavy monitoring of a volcano,
while effective, cannot predict exactly how the volcano will behave. Since that time,
investments and public information have created confidence that USGS and local
emergency management is capable of providing public warnings and evacuations in time
to save lives. Continued investment in risk assessment and warning systems, for example,
around Orting, WA, continue to build public confidence. An event could either
undermine or strengthen this confidence, depending on losses and the speed of warning.
A potential public confidence issue is from false positives that trigger evacuations. There
have been numerous cases outside of the US where communities are evacuated, only for
the volcano not to erupt at that time. Communities can become inured to warnings.
When this happens, and an event does occur, there are much higher losses. A false alert is
unlikely in the USGS monitoring system for Mt. Rainier as the danger of a false alert has
been a central consideration in the design of the system.
127 Clark County Emergency Management. 2007. 2006 Volcanic Ashfall Exercise After Action Report / Improvement
Plan.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
189
A period of unrest, leading to heightened monitoring and public awareness could last days
or years before anything (or nothing) happens. Sharing information with the public on the
uncertainty of volcanoes and the potential for long-term monitoring is important.
Additionally, in the event of unrest and a potential lahar, the local jurisdiction are the only
ones who can actually order the evacuation and so much be prepared to assess risk,
inform the public, and act when needed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
190
Regional Risk Profile: Wildfire
Hazard Description
King County and Western Washington in general have historically been at a low risk from major
wildland and wildland-urban interface fires. The historic return period for the heavily forested areas of
the slopes of the Cascades in eastern King County is between 200 and 300 years. Western Washington
fires are not unheard of, however – in 1902, dozens of wildfires burned nearly 239,000 acres in what is
now the Yacolt Burn State Forest, causing 38 deaths. This
occurred after an extended period of hot, dry weather, high
wind, and an over-accumulation of timber harvest slash.128
Climate change is shortening this interval, though it is still
unknown by how much. By 2040, a four-fold increase in the
annual area burned by fires in Washington is projected.129 Of a
more immediate concern is the amount of new development
in areas close to the wildland-urban interface. This new
exposure is the primary driver of risk in the short and medium
term.
Wildfires can occur when the necessary combination of
weather (low humidity, low precipitation, high temperatures, high wind), topography (steeper slopes,
gulches, canyons, and ridges), and fuel (higher amounts, higher concentration, continuous across the
landscape, low in moisture) are brought together with an ignition source (lightening or human-caused).
In the western United States, we have seen an increase in large wildfires due to more than a century of
fire prevention efforts, rising temperatures, declining forest health, and increased development.
Wildfires can spread quickly when burning in areas with dense, dry, uninterrupted fuels. This is
particularly true in areas with steep slopes and ridges and in windy weather with high temperatures and
low humidity. This mix of requirements has meant that there have been very few serious fires in King
County.
The wildland fire season in Washington usually runs from July through September. Drought, low snow
pack, and local weather conditions can lengthen the fire season. Many of the worst fire years on record
have occurred in the past decade. Suppression costs alone cost $60 million for the Carlton Complex fire.
Economic costs were estimated at $98 million for that fire.130
128 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Yacolt Burn State Forest website. Accessed online on 6/19/19
from https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Yacolt.
129 King County. 2018. King County Strategic Climate Action Plan 2018 Biennial Report.
130 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
191
Washington State Department of Natural Resources lays out the scale of the problem in the new, 10-
year strategic plan.131 “In 2018, wildland fires burned more than 350,000 acres in Washington state and
cost more than $112 million dollars to suppress—all before the end of August….Yet, 2018 was not the
state’s worst for fire. In recent years, hotter, drier summers and longer fire seasons have led to a trend in
increased fire starts and area burned. Fires in 2014 and 2015 burned approximately 425,300 and
1,064,100 acres and cost state and federal agencies nearly $182 million and $345 million in firefighting
expenses, respectively. In addition to the significant structural and economic losses, three firefighter
lives were lost in 2015.”
The largest fires in Washington State are usually sparked by lightning in wilderness areas. Small fires
(often ignited due to human activity) can also be damaging, however. For example, a small 400-acre fire
in Thurston County in 2017 led to the evacuation of nearly 100 homes and the loss of four homes.
Human-caused ignition sources may include chains dragging behind trucks, cigarettes, arson, or the loss
of control of fires set for recreational purposes.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources is leading an effort including King County to
complete a statewide map of all wildland-urban interface areas. Once the mapping is complete, RCW
19.27.560 will take effect, adopting the ICC’s 2018 International WUI Code. The following map is a
draft map developed using United States Forest Service land cover data and King County parcel data.
Interface areas are at the boundary of urban and vegetated areas. Intermix areas are areas where
structures and vegetation are mingled.
131 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Washington State Wildland Fire Protection 10 -Year
Strategic Plan. Accessed online on 8/26/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_wildfire_strategic_plan.pdf?ivvzxs.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
192
Draft Wildland-Urban Interface Areas: red = interface/intermix areas with high structure density (Source: DNR WUI
Mapping Program, 2018)
Wildfire hazards include the fire itself, but also smoke and post-wildfire erosion and flooding. Wildfire
smoke is made up of particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other harmful pollutants from burning
trees, plant materials, and combustion of plastics and other chemicals released from burning structures
and furnishings. Exposure to fine particulate matter (2.5 micrometers and smaller) is a significant health
concern, because the small size of the particle allows people to inhale it deep in the lungs where the
particles can directly enter the blood stream. The effects of smoke exposure range from eye and
respiratory tract irritation to more serious health problems including reduced lung function, bronchitis,
and exacerbation of asthma, heart failure, and premature death. People with existing heart and lung
diseases, older adults, children and pregnant women are especially at risk of smoke-related health
problems.132
Post-wildfire flooding, landslides, and mudslides is a deadly secondary hazard to extreme wildfires in
areas with steep slopes. Soils in areas burned by fire not only lose their stabilizing vegetation but can
also become hydrophobic (water repelling), leading to massive water runoff that carries debris down
slopes and into nearby waterways. In Montecito, CA more than 17 people died, 100 homes were
destroyed, and hundreds of people were rescued from a series of mudslides and mudflows that hit
following heavy rains that drenched areas burned over earlier that summer.133 Mudslides were a serious
MAP SUBJECT TO CHANGE
BASED ON CONTINUED
WORK BY WA DNR
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
193
threat in Eastern Washington following the 2014 and 2015 wildfires, and destroyed irrigation systems,
roads, and bridges.
One aspect of post-fire flooding is that it can be predicted. King County would likely have weeks to
months to prepare and plan for flooding events resulting from a major fire. The Department of Ecology
maintains a post-fire flooding calculator to estimate runoff and prepare communities for flooding. In
Montecito, for example, emergency managers had already evacuated thousands of people and it was
those who chose to not heed the warnings that were most likely to be impacted by the mudslides.
Vulnerability Characteristics and Previous Occurrences
King County communities are rarely threatened by major wildfires, though roadside brush fires can still
threaten even the most urbanized areas.134135 This has meant that land use and building codes in King
County are not adapted to current and future wildfire risk. As the climate changes, there is a greater
likelihood that high temperature and dry conditions will be present along with the already-existing
topographic, wind, and fuel conditions necessary to support a large fire
Smoke has received the bulk of recent attention in King County due to multiple years of wildfire smoke
in the Puget Sound region from wildfires in British Columbia, Oregon, and Eastern Washington. Air
quality deteriorated to hazardous conditions in some parts of King County in 2017 and 2018. Recent
studies of wildfire smoke exposure in Washington found a significant relationship between exposure to
PM2.5 from wildfire smoke and an increase in emergency room and outpatient visits for asthma.
Especially impacted were those with pediatric asthma and other childhood respiratory and chest
symptoms, as well as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease across all age groups, and all respiratory
outcomes.136 Smoke will likely be an ongoing concern for the region and may represent a “new normal”
though it will not occur every year.
Post-fire flooding is a serious threat to King County. A fire in one of the foothills communities could
cause major mudflows and devastating flooding in communities in the watershed impacted by the fire
and through which rivers and creeks pass. Communities with existing flood risk, such as along the
Snoqualmie River, are especially vulnerable. Damage to homes caused by debris flows is typically not
covered by regular homeowner’s insurance.
132 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
133 Queally, James, Etehad, Melissa, and Brittny Mejia. Jan 10, 2018. Death toll rises to 17 in Montecito; 100 homes
destroyed by mudslides. The Las Angeles Times. Accessed online on 6/18/19 from
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-montecito-storm-mudflow-20180110-htmlstory.html.
134 Headwater Economics. 2018. Communities Across the US Are Experiencing Threats from Wildfires. Accessed online
on 6/18/19 from https://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/communities-wildfire-threat/.
135 KIRO 7 News Staff. July 27, 2011. Brush fires shut down portion of SR 509. KIRO 7. Accessed online on 8/27/19
from https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/brush-fires-shut-down-portion-of-sr-509/970676697.
136 For more information, see Washington State Department of Health/Chelan-Douglas, Grant, Kittitas and Okanogan
Counties (2015), Surveillance Investigation of the Cardiopulmonary Health Effects of the 2 012 Wildfires in North
Central Washington State; Gan, R. W., B. Ford, W. Lassman, G. Pfister, A. Vaidyanathan, E. Fischer, J. Volckens, J. R.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
194
Scenario Drivers137138
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire
Although fires are currently rare in Western
Washington, they are not unheard of and are expected
to increase as climate change leads to warmer
temperatures. Prolonged summer heat, combined with
high density forests and areas of poor forest health, is
increasing fire risk at the same time that people are
building more and more into the wildland-urban
interface. The building patterns in these areas are not in
accordance with FireWise principles and many
communities have limited ingress and egress routes.
Smoke
Source: Greg Gilbert, Seattle Times
In 2017, and especially 2018, smoke from wildfires
inundated Seattle, causing unhealthy air quality. This
was due to wind patterns that blew smoke from fires in
British Columbia, Oregon, and Eastern Washington.
Warmer summers will increase the number of fires and
with more fires, more smoky days are likely.139
137 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on
6/7/19 from https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/flooding/maps/river-landslide-
hazards/landslide-types.aspx#Debris.
138 Washington State Geologic Survey. Landslide Hazards Program website. Accessed online on 6/7/19 from
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides#types-of-landslides.8
139 Gilbert, Greg. August 14, 2018. Smoky Seattle summers: expect more of them, scientists say. The Seattle Times.
Accessed online on 6/19/19 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/smoky-seattle-summers-expect-more-of-
them-scientists-say/.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
195
Post-fire flooding and debris flows
Wildfires burn vegetation on steep slopes, not only
destabilizing the slopes but also making the soil
hydrophobic in high-intensity fires. This can lead to
large debris flows and mudslides when heavy rains
occur that damage infrastructure and communities
downstream for several years after a fire. USGS can
conduct assessments on burned areas to determine the
likelihood of major debris flows from a burned area.140
Priority Vulnerabilities
Structures built in
interface or intermix areas
Structures built in interface or intermix areas are more susceptible to fires,
including from spotting and embers ahead of a fire. This is especially true for
buildings with less than 100 feet of defensible space.
Foothills and interface
communities
Communities in or around areas at a higher risk of fire, such as those in the
foothills of the Cascades, are more susceptible to fire.
Communities in or near
the floodplain,
downstream of potential
burn areas
Major wildfires can cause the soil to become hydrophobic. When rains come,
large quantities of water and debris and rush down hillsides and destroy
homes and infrastructure while causing flooding in downstream
communities.
Communities built
without multiple ingress
and egress routes
Communities with a single ingress and egress route are much more difficult
to protect and evacuate. Roads that are less than 24 feet wide, especially
those less than 20 feet wide, and those driveways without a turnaround are
highest risk.
Buildings built with
flammable materials and
with vegetation close to
the structure
Buildings not meeting FireWise principles, including defensible space, are
most at risk to wildfire. This includes proximity of dense brush or timber,
flammable composition of structure roof, and siding.
Communities on slopes or
hills
Fires tend to burn up slopes and ridges, endangering structures in those
areas. Buildings less than 30 feet from a slope of greater than 30% grade are
most vulnerable.
140 USGS. 2018. Miriam Fire Preliminary Hazard Assessment. Accessed online on 6/19/19 from
https://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/postfire_debrisflow/detail.php?objectid=224 .
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
196
Areas with more frequent
severe fire weather days
and winds
Fire weather, including low humidity and wind, is a major predictor for when
ignitions, which are common, will spread and become a major fire. Areas
prone to this weather are expected to expand due to climate change.
Areas greater than five
miles from a fire station
and with limited water
source availability
Buildings more than five miles away from fire services and with limited
pressurized fire hydrant access are more vulnerable.
Priority Impact Areas
King County
residents
King County residents are most likely to experience fire impacts from smoke. Smoke can
cause respiratory issues and prevent people from taking part in outdoor activities. There
are limited populations exposed to wildfire hazard in interface areas, though this risk is
growing due to climate change and new development.
Vulnerable
populations
Populations suffering from respiratory ailments are at the greatest risk from wildfire since
smoke from fire. People with existing heart and lung diseases, older adults, children and
pregnant women are especially at risk of smoke-related health problems.
Property The level of exposure of property and potential impacts to property from wildfire is not
yet known in detail. The communities with the highest levels of exposure include
Snoqualmie, North Bend, and unincorporated areas of the county in the foothills of the
Cascades. King County is working on a better estimate of overall risk to property and will
update this plan with that information when it is available. Likely impacts to property
include smoke damage to total loss of facilities. Communities built with many homes
close together and constructed of flammable materials can be completely burned in a
short time, as seen in Fort McMurray, Canada, Paradise California, and Santa Rosa,
California.
The economy At present, there is relatively little economic impact from wildfires in most of King
County. The fires are predominately a risk in the more rural parts of the county. There is
some impact from smoke and fire to transportation systems; however, it is likely to be
limited and temporary. The largest impacts are likely to be indirect, including losses in
work days because of poor air quality, loss of capital required for suppression efforts,
interrupted access, and losses in tourist income.
The
environment
While fires are often beneficial to the landscape when regular and not intense, a major
wildfire can be damaging in the near term. Fires can pollute water systems and destroy
old growth habitat. They can burn over springs and increase evaporation. Following
extreme fires, hydrophobic soils make it difficult for plants to regrow in and the runoff
over these soils increases the turbidity of local streams, endangering fish and other water
animal populations.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
197
Health
systems
Exposure to fine particulate matter (parts per million 2.5) is a significant health concern,
because the small size of the particle allows people to inhale it deep in the lungs where
the particles can directly enter the blood stream. The effects of smoke exposure range
from eye and respiratory tract irritation to more serious health problems including
reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma and heart failure, and
premature death.141 During extreme smoke pollution events, public health systems are
likely to be overburdened by populations suffering respiratory distress.
Government
operations
(continuity of
operations)
Most King County operations and facilities are in the more urban areas of the county and
unlikely to be directly impacted by wildfires. Smoke, however, can cause an increase in
employee absenteeism as employees may need to stay home to avoid smoke exposure.
Another risk is that a wildfire might occupy most of the region’s firefighting capabilities,
leaving less capability to continue regular structure fire and emergency medical missions.
Responders Growing numbers of wildfires will increase risk to firefighters. Firefighters in the Puget
Sound mostly respond to structure fires. With an increase in wildland or WUI fires,
firefighting becomes more complex and dangerous. Also, communities without proper
ingress/egress routes further increase risk to firefighters who may be called upon to
attempt evacuations in such communities. According to the Washington State Enhanced
Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are less than five first responder facilities exposed to
wildfire.142
Infrastructure
systems
• Energy: Washington’s transmission lines run through wildland areas. Wildfires in
King County could damage or destroy these systems, although brush is usually
kept clear of the largest transmission facilities. Rural and other interface power
lines would be burned in any fire, as has been seen in numerous communities in
Eastern Washington. Utilities in California are increasingly powering down
transmission systems during “red flag” fire conditions, affecting energy
customers.
• Water/Wastewater: Many water reservoirs are in forested areas and could be
impacted by wildfire that may burn power supplies to pump stations or the pump
stations themselves. Furthermore, post-fire flooding could damage or pollute
reservoirs.
• Transportation: Fire can cause road closures due to visibility concerns. A greater
risk, however, is post-fire flooding and debris flows that can damage or destroy
roads and bridges downstream or downslope from a burned area after a rain.
Additionally, SeaTac Airport was forced to cancel flights in 2018 due to poor
visibility during smoke events.
141 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk
Assessment. Pp. 493-495.
142 Washington State Emergency Management. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: Wildfire Risk
Assessment. Page 533.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
198
• Communications: Cellular communications sites can lose power or be damaged
by wildfire. During these events, it may be necessary to deploy cellular on wheels
capabilities.
Public
confidence in
jurisdiction’s
governance
and
capabilities
Wildfire hazards have gained renewed importance in recent years due to the smoke
problems of 2017 and 2018. Numerous articles in the Seattle Times and other media
describe a “new normal” of smoke and fire danger in the Northwest. State and local
jurisdictions have been working to prepare public information messaging due to health
concerns and public interest. Government will need to be proactive in managing this
hazard in order to maintain public confidence.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
199
Hazard Mitigation Strategies
The primary focus of this plan update was the development of comprehensive, operationally viable
hazard mitigation strategies and the establishment of a capability to supervise and promote their
implementation. Plan strategies were developed using the following structure:
Hazard mitigation strategies were developed by each participating jurisdiction, supported by a series of
workshops, described in the planning partner engagement section of the introduction. The workshops
were hosted by King County Emergency Management and included state and FEMA staff associated
with the RiskMAP program.
The half-day workshop series took participants from developing risk problem statements (December
2018), through identifying community assets and strategies to protect those assets (July 2019), to funding
projects (August 2019). Using problem statements developed in the first workshop, participants
identified assets and then developed strategies that could protect their assets in workshop 2. Participants
were also guided through a strategy prioritization exercise using the King County method described
below. They left the second workshop with a list of strategies drafted and prioritized. For the third
workshop, participants learned about potential funding sources and how to seek funding for high-
priority strategies and eligible projects that they could not fund internally.
For those unable to attend workshops in-person, the planning team provided handouts and met in-
person over through Skype to walk jurisdictions through the same process. Unless indicated otherwise,
this is the method planning partners used to develop and prioritize hazard mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Plan Goals
Mitigation Plan
Strategies
Mitigation Projects
•These match the 14
Determinants of Equity,
from King County's Equity
and Social Justice Program
•Support community
resilience.
•These are broad approaches
to address a problem and
support the Plan goals.
•These may live on from
plan to plan.
•These are the specific
actions to be taken in
support of the Plan
Strategies.
•These are on either a 2 year
or 5 year timeline.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
200
Each planning partner also convened those internal stakeholders who were responsible for projects or
programs that supported or implemented mitigation along with those stakeholders with funding available
or funding needs. In King County, the primary hazard mitigation agencies include:
• Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Water and Land Resources
• Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Wastewater Treatment
• Department of Local Services – Permitting
• Department of Local Services – Roads
• King County Information Technology
• Department of Executive Services - King County International Airport
• Department of Executive Services – Facilities Management Division
• Public Health Seattle – King County
The planning team met with each department individually, with each developing and submitting a list of
potential hazard mitigation strategies and projects.
Departments attended the July Mitigation Strategy Workshop and August Mitigation Funding Workshop
along with the local jurisdiction partners.
Mitigation Plan Goals:
Goals are broad policy statements of the community’s vision for the future. They help describe the
contribution each strategy makes toward major objectives that reach beyond any individual department
or discipline. In alignment of this and with the Plan’s purpose, King County’s Regional Hazard
Mitigation Steering Committee adopted King County’s Determinants of Equity143 as Mitigation Plan
Goals:
Mitigation Plan Goals - 14 Determinants of Equity
1. Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2. Access to Health and Human Services
3. Access to Parks and Natural Resources
4. Access to Safe and Efficient Transportation
5. Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6. Community and Public Safety
7. Early Childhood Development
8. Economic Development
9. Equitable Law and Justice System
10. Equity in Government Practices
11. Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12. Healthy Built and Natural Environments
13. Quality Education
143 Office of the King County Executive. 2016. Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan. Accessed online on 7/24/19
from https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/strategic-plan.aspx.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
201
14. Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
Supplemental Goals:
15. Resilient and safe high and significant-hazard dams
16. Proactive and innovative floodplain management to reduce Repetitive Loss and Severe
Repetitive Loss properties
Mitigation strategies will be categorized according to these 16 factors.
Mitigation Plan Strategies
Mitigation Plan Strategies will be developed based on threats to essential assets and capabilities from
hazards within cities and unincorporated areas of King County. In the past these have included strategies
for risks such as land movement and flood impacts and projects such as bridge seismic retrofits and
generators for critical facilities. For this plan, hazard mitigation strategies are sets of coordinated actions
that, taken together, address a risk or vulnerability. They are comprehensive, long-term, and designed to
be regularly updated as actions are completed.
The updated strategy format will be used going forward in order to better support long-term tracking of
mitigation actions and strategies. The updated strategy template is displayed below.
Lead Points of
Contact (Title)
Partner Points of Contact (Title)
Who else outside your jurisdiction benefits
from the strategy or will help implement the
strategy?
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
Funding Sources
and Estimated
Costs
Strategy Vision/Objective
Long-term objective and vision for the strategy
Mitigation Strategy
Describe the program/proposed program
2-Year Objectives 5-Year Objectives Long-Term Objectives
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
202
Implementation Plan/Actions
This can provide a timeline, indicate partners, discuss implementation stages, etc. Use this to discuss how the
strategy/program will be implemented over the long term.
Performance Measures
This template will be built into a database where strategies can be entered, updated, and projects can be
prioritized consistently and effectively. The goal is for strategies to remain in place through future plan
updates, while implementation plan actions are changed.
Mitigation Plan Projects
Mitigation Plan Projects represent the specific work to be done and actions to be taken to mitigate a risk
or hazard. Candidate projects will be developed and considered for and by each participating jurisdiction,
with a process to engage the public in the prioritization of projects. Projects will be prioritized using the
scoring method established by the Steering Committee to ensure alignment with the Plan Strategies and
Goals and in keeping with the following values:
➢ Equity, Social Justice, and Vulnerability
➢ Collaborative
➢ Adaptation and Sustainability
➢ Multiple-Benefit
➢ Effectiveness
➢ Urgent
➢ Shovel-Ready
Prioritizing Hazard Mitigation Projects
King County developed a prioritization process based on criteria taken from national best practices144
and priorities identified by the King County Executive. These criteria are used to prioritize projects
within strategies. Strategies are also prioritized in this way to identify those areas of emphasis for KCEM
and the mitigation steering committee, though this may not impact which strategies are implemented
since many depend on exclusive funding sources. The below criteria will be used to establish priorities.
These priorities will be applied to projects annually for submission to the FEMA BRIC program.
144 Washington, District of Columbia Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. 2018. District Hazard
Mitigation Plan, Discussion Draft.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
203
King County uses the below matrix, scoring each factor from 0 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (outstanding) with
the option of a score of -4 (actively harms the factor). Identifying projects that harm, and giving harmful
factors more weight in the formula, is designed to encourage project proponents to modify their
proposed design to better resolve any issues.
• -4 Project actively harms or is detrimental to this factor.
• 0 Unsatisfactory for this factor
• 1 Minimal level of standards for this factor
• 2 Satisfactory level of standards for this factor
• 3 High level of standards for this factor
• 4 Outstanding or beyond expectations for this factor.
Strategy:
Factors for Consideration Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
Equity, Social Justice, and Vulnerability
(project is designed to benefit, account for,
and include vulnerable populations,
especially those in the community most
likely to suffer harm from a disaster and
those likely to take longest to recover after a
disaster)
Collaborative (project is supported by
multiple jurisdictions or agencies)
Multiple-Benefit (project has benefits
beyond hazard risk reduction, including
environmental, social, or economic benefits)
Adaptation and Sustainability (project helps
people, property, and the environment
become more resilient to the effects of
climate change, regional growth, and
development)
Effectiveness (project is designed to attain
the best-possible benefit-cost ratio)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
204
Urgent (project is urgently needed to reduce
risk to lives and property)
Shovel-Ready (project is largely ready to go,
with few remaining roadblocks that could
derail it)
Total Scores
Process Note: Once a jurisdiction has prioritized projects within that jurisdiction, those projects will be
advanced to the regional plan. If ever there is competition between projects advanced from different
jurisdictions, the RHMP Steering Committee, consisting of representatives from county departments and
jurisdiction partners, will establish the order of priorities based on the values identified above. The
Steering Committee will also organize priority projects with corresponding strategies. It should be noted
that while prioritized projects will be included in the plan, they may not all receive funding. The Steering
Committee may also seek to promote a diversity of projects so that all plan goals receive some benefits.
In the case of a tie between projects during scoring, the higher prioritization may go to the less-
represented mitigation strategy.
In addition to regular ranking of mitigation projects, the steering committee ranked mitigation strategies
using the above tool to identify the highest priority strategy within each department and then the highest
priority strategies for the county overall. These priorities are reported in the mitigation strategy section of
this plan.
Crosswalk with the Strategic Climate Action Plan
Several strategies appear in some form in both the SCAP and this plan. This was done to ensure multiple
avenues of implementation and monitoring and to help relevant actions gain a higher profile with other
departments. Below are strategies that appear in some form in both plans.
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Strategy Strategic Climate Action Plan Action
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction
Accelerate Floodplain Acquisitions Accelerate Floodplain Acquisitions
Public Information Flood Activities Increase Technical Assistance to Property
Owners for Flood Risk Reduction
Flood Risk Mapping Flood Risk Mapping
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
205
Reduce Flood Impacts to King County Roads Maintain Quick Response Budget for Emergency
Repairs
Stormwater and Surface Water Risk Reduction Stormwater and Surface Water Risk Reduction
Climate Integration Training Engage Partners on Climate Preparedness
Opportunities
Sea-Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities Sea-Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities
Ongoing Plan Maintenance and Strategy Updates
King County leads the mitigation plan monitoring and update process and schedules annual plan check-
ins and bi-annual mitigation strategy updates. Updates on mitigation projects are solicited by the county
for inclusion in the countywide annual report. As part of participating in the 2020 update to the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan, every jurisdiction agrees to convene their internal planning team at least
annually. Partners will convene at least biannually to update hazard mitigation strategies. For the 2020
plan, progress updates will be due in 2022 and 2024, in advance of plan expiration in 2025.
In addition to the biannual strategy updates and annual planning check-ins, mitigation strategies that
address flooding will be reviewed, revised, and updated annually. Special focus is warranted for flood
hazards since flooding has historically been the most damaging hazard and the majority of Federal
Disaster Declarations including the county are due to flooding.
Given the emphasis on plan integration described in the introduction, plan check-ins for all planning
partners will include updates on integrating comprehensive, capital improvement, and other local and
regional plans with hazard mitigation plans and data. This effort is already beginning with the integration
of hazard risk and vulnerability information into the 2020 update of the countywide planning processes.
As part of leading a countywide planning effort, King County Emergency Management will send to
planning partner any federal notices of funding opportunity for the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant
Program. Proposals from partners will be assessed according the prioritization process identified in this
plan and the county will, where possible, support those partners submitting grant proposals. This will be
a key strategy to implement the plan.
The next plan update is expected to be due in April 2025. All jurisdictions will submit letters of intent by
2023, at least two years prior to plan expiration. The county will lead the next regional planning effort,
beginning at least 18 months before the expiration of the 2020 plan.
To update and maintain the mitigation strategies, KC EM has worked with the King County Risk
Management Services department to develop a reporting tool that will allow for easier updates on 2 and
5-year objective progress. These updates will be collected electronically and feed into a program that can
track progress over time for each mitigation strategy. The strategy progress can then be reported out.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
206
Alternatively, progress made on strategies can be organized according to mitigation plan goals. This will
be done to show how projects undertaken by agencies and jurisdictions are supporting the 14
Determinants of Equity. Data parsed both in terms of the mitigation plan goals and by strategy will be
reported to the County Executive and Council biannually in the annual report of the department.
In addition to the updates for mitigation strategies, the expected publication of data from several
programs may trigger an update.
• Publication of the Department of Homeland Security Regional Resiliency Assessment Program
report
• Publication of the countywide landslide susceptibility map from Washington Department of
Natural Resources
• Publication of the Wildland Urban Interface wildfire risk map from Washington Department of
Natural Resources
• Publication of tsunami inundation data from Washington Department of Natural Resources
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
207
Plan Approval and Adoption
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is submitted first to Washington State Emergency
Management for review and then to FEMA for final review and preliminary approval. Each jurisdiction,
along with the base plan, must meet all FEMA requirements outlined in the FEMA Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan Review Guide. If requirements are found to not be met, the jurisdiction involved must
revise the plan and resubmit. Once preliminary approval is secured, FEMA will send a notice of
Approval – Pending Adoption.
The RHMP is adopted by each participating jurisdiction, primarily through a resolution passed by the
council or commission responsible. The King County Council adopted this plan on DATE, following
notice of approval, pending adoption from FEMA and Washington State Emergency Management. This
plan is effective upon adoption and will expire 5 years to the day after adoption.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
208
Mitigation Strategy Status Updates from the 2015 Plan
The format for hazard mitigation strategies has been completely changed in the 2020 plan update. All
actions previously identified have been removed and/or incorporated into new mitigation strategies. The
updated strategy format will better support tracking and implementation of mitigation strategies and
their constituent actions. Strategies that are preparedness focused have been removed, as well as those
that are ongoing in nature and do not have specific targets or responsible entities.
The following tables are taken from the 2018 annual progress report for the 2015 King County Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan. This list only includes strategies submitted by King County departments and
countywide strategies. Individual jurisdiction action progress reports are included in each annex. The
new statuses for strategies include:
• Removed – Strategy is not carried forward into the new plan
• Complete – Strategy is complete and not carried forward into the new plan
• Updated – Strategy is updated and carried forward into the new mitigation plan.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
209
CURRENT PROGRESS ON 2015 ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES
Progress
(Yes/No) Timeline
Update
Status Comment (Describe progress or changed priority)
2018
Status
CW-1—Continue to participate in and support the “Resilient King County” initiative.
Yes Long-
Term
Removed King County is continuing work towards developing a
Regional Recovery Framework. Recent efforts to vet
content with King County’s Department Directors
and Executive Office have been made to start to
formulate a governance structure.
Ongoing
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed King County’s Regional Hazard Mitigation plan and
all updated documents will continue to be posted to
the website.
Ongoing
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed We continue to enhance public education campaigns
and have now added climate resilience as part of our
educational presentations.
Ongoing
CW-4—Continue to support the use, development and enhancement of a regional alert and
notification system.
Yes Short
Term
Removed King County deployed a new Regional Alert and
Notification System. Many King County departments
and cities have signed on.
Complete
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.
Yes Long
Term
Removed KC DNRP has updated landslide hazard maps (see
DNRP – WLR 3 & DNRP – WLR 4)
Ongoing
CW-6—Encourage signatories for the regional coordination framework for disasters and planned
events.
Yes Long
Term
Removed New signatories were added in 2016. Ongoing
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.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
210
Yes Long
Term
Removed Ongoing communication and coordination was
completed through the linkage process of Lake Forest
Park and Kenmore, grants coordination for various
applications, and ongoing communication for
progress reporting.
Ongoing
DNRP-SWD-1—Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed
seismic standards, including redundant essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all
renovation or replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Design standards exist and we will continue to design
and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic
standards, including redundant essential equipment.
Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or
replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Complete
DNRP-SWD-2—Vulnerability Assessment of Cedar Hills Landfills Structures. Conduct a vulnerability
assessment of buildings at the Cedar Hills Landfill to ascertain readiness.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Structural integrity to be addressed through seismic
design standards; to be removed as part of standard
work. Additional work completed to reduce
vulnerability at the landfill includes: completed
Emergency Action Plan, Dam Break Analysis,
Potential Inundation Area Mapping for the
Contaminated Stormwater (CSW) Pond dam and the
SW Stormwater Pond dam (both state registered dams
at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill). The SCADA system
is being updated to monitor and automate operation
adjustments for pumping at the CSW facility. The area
8 stockpile slope was regraded Q3 2018 in response to
a Q4 2017 slope failure (a.k.a., landslide or land
movement) and to mitigate future failure prior to the
rainy season. Coordination between SWD and OEM
enhanced, including use of mass notification system
for incident response, support and community
notification.
Complete
DNRP-WLR-1—Flood Insurance Program. Continue to maintain compliance and good standing
under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be accomplished through the implementation
of floodplain management programs, at a minimum, will meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP,
which include the following:
• Enforcing the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Providing public assistance and information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Met minimum requirements of the NFIP by
providing public assistance and information on
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
211
floodplain requirements, enforcing the adopted flood
damage reduction ordinance and participating in
floodplain mapping updates. Maintain a CRS Class 2
rating, which verifies that King County meets and
exceeds FEMA NFIP minimum requirements.
DNRP-WLR-2—Landslide Hazard Coordination. Form an interdepartmental landslide hazard
committee that includes DNRP, DPER, DOT, and OEM. The committee will address broad policy
issues, including capital projects, communication, code changes, etc.
No Long-
term
Updated Form an interdepartmental landslide hazard
committee that includes DNRP, DPER, DOT and
OEM. The committee will address broad policy
issues, including capital projects, communication,
code changes, etc.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-3—Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase I. Update the current landslide hazard map with
information that has been collected to date.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Low priority now that map is complete.
Status: Complete for areas within major river
corridors and Vashon-Maury Island.
Comment: A Phase 1 map was completed in October
2014. Phase I mapping along river corridors was
completed by Water Land Resources Division as the
service provider to the King County Flood Control
District and Phase 1 mapping for Vashon-Maury
Island was provided by KC DPER. Areas outside of
major river corridors were not included in this map.
Complete
DNRP-WLR-4—Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase II. Create a geo-database with detailed information
on landslide types, run out, landslide dams, etc. Database will be searchable and updatable as new
information is acquired.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Phase II mapping along river corridors was completed
by Water Land Resources Division as the service
provider to the King County Flood Control District
(KCFCD). Areas outside of the major river corridors
(including Vashon-Maury Island) are not included in
the geo-database. This mapping along river corridors
includes five general landslide types, each of these
were mapped separately to illustrate potential hazard
areas. This mapping has been completed along with a
supporting technical report, database and a user-
Complete
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
212
friendly web tool. It is anticipated that this mapping
will be publicly available in August 2016. This
mapping will be available in a GIS format. No
suitable methodology was identified to predict future
landslide runout beyond area of current landslide
debris deposition. Therefore, neither such landslide
runout, nor the resulting formation of landslide dams
was mapped. At this time funding has not been
secured for ongoing database management or further
updates to the river corridor landslide mapping
information.
DPER completed a separate landslide hazard
mapping project covering unincorporated King
County largely outside of the forest production
zone. This was an expansion of the Phase 1 mapping
and was needed to identify areas for further
geotechnical investigation during building and land
use permit application reviews. This mapping does
not distinguish between different landslide
processes. The DPER mapping is complete to
current specifications and is presently undergoing
internal review. DPER’s map of potential landslide
hazards will be available in a GIS format. It will be
updated at appropriate intervals as needed following
receipt of new data.
Landslide hazards in incorporated areas outside of
major river corridors are not included in the Phase I
or Phase II products. At this time no work is funded
or planned to conduct landslide hazard mapping for
incorporated areas that are outside of the major river
corridors.
DNRP-WLR-5—Flood Protection Facility Maintenance. Maintain and repair damaged structural
elements for King County’s extensive inventory of flood protection facilities.
Yes Long-
term
Updated County staff completed 421 inspections on 332 levees
and revetments during the reporting period. Of these,
143 were routine inspections and 279 were post-flood
inspections following the 2015-2016 flood season.
Resulting in identification of damages to flood
protection facilities and repairs or emergency
management plan.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
213
Maintenance of more than 70 sites included irrigation,
signage, hazard tree mitigation, debris removal,
planting, mulching, mowing and installation of a
device to prevent beavers from blocking two large
culverts which could result in flooding homes and
roads in the North Bend area.
Resulting in reduced potential for flooding.
DNRP-WLR-6—River Corridor Restoration. Remove, slope back, or set back County-owned flood
protection facilities and other structural features to allow for improved riparian habitat, greater channel
diversity and migration, reclaimed flood storage and enhanced open space or recreational/ interpretive
uses.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Completed projects allowing for river corridor
restoration include the Sinnema Quaale Revetment
project on the Snoqualmie River. This revetment
repair was completed in the summer of 2016 and has
significantly decreased the risks to the Snoqualmie
Valley Trail, regionally significant fiber optic lines and
SR203. The Countyline to A Street levee setback on
the White River is currently under construction.
Additional setback projects are planned for
construction in 2017.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-7—Flood Hazard Mitigation. Acquire repetitively damaged homes, purchase
underdeveloped land to prevent future development in flood prone areas, and, where cost-effective
and feasible, elevate residential homes that sustain recurring deep, low-velocity flooding.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Non-structural mitigation efforts are ongoing in flood
prone areas. Eleven at-risk homes were elevated in
the Snoqualmie basin during the reporting period;
another 13 home elevations are underway. Elevating
homes eliminates flood damage to living space,
resulting in a more resilient community. Acquisition
of the last at-risk parcel in the San Souci
neighborhood along the Tolt River completed 20
years of effort to acquire 18 parcels from willing
landowners. These actions have completely eliminated
flood risks to the entire neighborhood and eliminated
emergency monitoring and response to the
neighborhood.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
214
DNRP-WLR-8—Critical Facility Retrofit. Retrofit the Black River Pump Station by updating the fuel
pumps to meet seismic requirements. Currently, the fuel supply tanks for King County flood facilities
cannot withstand a moderate to major quake.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Recent improvements include:
• Replacing the single-walled fuel system
with double-walled tanks and lines to
handle all diesel fuel in accordance with
current code requirements
• Replacing the pumphouse roof
• Installing safety rails on the roof
Sediment had accumulated in the pump inlet bays,
hindering operation of pump screen systems.
Accumulated sediment was emptied from the bays
and inlet apron in 2016 to allow continued operation
of the screens and pumps. This improves the certainty
of flood protection the station provides too much of
Renton and parts of Tukwila and Kent.
Staff have completed update of Emergency Action
Plans for 10 state registered dams in compliance with
Washington Dam Safety Office. Improvements to
these plans include automated notification applying
King County Alert and King County Inform
emergency notification platforms; upgrades to dam
break analysis and Potential Inundation Area
mapping; and enhanced coordination between
operations and emergency planning.
Ongoing
DNRP-WLR-9—Flood Hazard Reduction Programs. Conduct activities that are vital to the mitigation
of the natural hazards impacting King County, such as hazard identification, warning, information
dissemination and public outreach.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Expansion of the King County Flood Warning
System to include the South Fork Skykomish River. A
four-phase warning system is being developed in time
for the 2016–2017 flood season, following review and
approval by the District. This system is expected to
provide flood warnings to people who live, work or
travel through the town of Skykomish and the
surrounding area.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
215
In October, the annual flood warning brochure was
mailed to 19,222 addresses in the King County river
floodplain.
Significant outreach efforts during the reporting
period include preparation for flood season, outreach
about multiple construction projects, as well as
outreach about floodplain planning, technical studies
and maps, and other public engagement efforts.
DNRP-WLR-10—Critical Facility Upgrade. Continue to update flood warning telemetry and gauging,
computers, software applications, emergency power, and other response facilities.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Updates to the King County Flood App for iOS,
Android, and Windows phones were completed for
release by October 2015. All King County websites
were migrated to a new "mobile responsive" template
which adapts to a wide range of screen sizes, from
small smartphone displays to big screen desktop
displays. In addition, improvements were made to the
back-end systems that manage the flood data used on
the websites, apps and automated phone systems.
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-1— Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed
seismic standards, including essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or
replacement of existing facilities and/or equipment.
Yes Long-
term
Updated This is an ongoing process- we apply current seismic
standards to all renovation and/or replacement of
existing facilities or equipment.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
216
DNRP-WTD-2—Vulnerability Assessments. Conduct vulnerability assessments of WTD treatment
plant facilities and conveyance system structures for flooding, earthquakes, large-scale power outages,
and hazardous material spills into the conveyance system (accidental or deliberate, i.e. terrorist action).
The assessments should include the following:
• Review existing earthquake vulnerability assessments and identify facilities and structures that
need further assessments.
• Review existing emergency power generation capacities at treatment plants, offsite facilities and
interceptors (pipelines) to identify vulnerabilities and response & restoration protocol
enhancements.
• Review existing spill response procedures and protocols for hazardous materials spills (both
accidental and intentional releases) that impact flows into the WTD system. Update and
coordinate emergency procedures with key fire departments and the Office of Emergency
Management.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Request for Proposal issued on 7/12/2016 Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-3—Modification of Existing Facilities. Use the data gathered by the earthquake
vulnerability assessments to identify capital projects that increase the resistance of the division’s
structures and conveyances to damage or that allow a rapid recovery from damage. Projects may
include seismic bracing of equipment and piping, removal of z-beam structures, access road
reinforcement for the West Point Treatment Plant, or seismic upgrade of underwater interceptors.
No Long-
term
Updated This task is driven by the results of the above
vulnerability
assessments which have yet to be conducted. See item
2 above
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-4—Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessments. Implement cost-effective measures to
address, through capital improvement and asset management programs, the vulnerability of 20 facilities
at risk of saltwater inflow. The facilities were identified by a WTD analysis of the wastewater system to
identify facilities at risk for saltwater inflow from future sea level rise, existing and predicted high tides,
and storm surges.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-5—Control System/ Cyber Security Vulnerability Assessment and Procedure Audit.
Implement the Ovation project—a multi-year, multi-million-dollar upgrade of the Wastewater
Treatment Division’s legacy control systems. WTD is in the process of updating its control systems.
Vulnerability assessments are designed into the Ovation project. When the system is operational, a
security audit would be conducted to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to protect the
system.
No Long-
term
Updated This assessment will be conducted when the system is
operational
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
217
DNRP-WTD-6—Emergency Communications Vulnerability Assessment. Perform an assessment to
determine the number of radios necessary to support operational readiness in the event of a widespread
telecommunications failure. Currently all key operational facilities and offsite operation and maintenance
vehicles are equipped with 800 MHz radios, constituting WTD’s core emergency communications
method. The analog equipment currently deployed is first generation and is being sunsetted as the
system is converted to a digital format. All the division’s analog radios will need to be replaced in the
next 3 to 5 years. Perform a further assessment of the reliability and deployment of other
communications devices: cell phones, smart phones, iPads, text messaging, and the emergency
notification system (MyState/AlertSense).
No Long-
term
Updated Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-7—GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data. Update the
WTD/DNRP Emergency Response map with the current priority roads, bridges, earthquake
liquefaction, inundation and landslide zones and gas/petroleum pipelines, under-laid with WTD
facilities and conveyance lines and emergency outfalls to facilitate emergency response and continuity
of operations. Make this information available through a password-protected website for select users.
Explore connecting the map to real-time flow data.
Yes Short-
term
Updated A GIS emergency mapping site is now operational on
the WTD intranet that shows facilities and
conveyance system. Working on moving it to an
internet site so that it can be accessed 24/7 by off
duty personnel.
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-8—Emergency Event Management System. Determine the best method for WTD to
manage and share emergency response and continuity of operations activities across the division’s five
treatment plants and the division headquarters in the King Street Center. Determine if the Regional
Information System can fulfill this function and, if not, what alternative systems are available
(WebEOC, CodeRed, etc.).
No Long-
term
Updated Tested the KC OEM SharePoint site during the CSZ
exercise. Assessing the need for a separate WTD
system
Ongoing
DNRP-WTD-9—Emergency Response/ Damage Assessment/FEMA Cost Tracking. To ensure
maximum FEMA reimbursement for disaster repair/mitigation, implement a system to capture and
track emergency response activities and expenses form the beginning of incidents through damage
assessment and restoration. Use this tracking system for all out-of-the-ordinary emergency events.
Include labor, equipment, mileage, supplies, expendables, and outside contracting associated with
response and repair.
No Short-
term
Updated Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
218
DOT-1—Updated response plans to address terrorism preparedness, including the following:
• Improve existing systems to address new technologies that are available for early weapons-of-
mass-destruction detection.
• Leverage existing resources and partnerships (Securitas, King County Sheriff’s Office, Seattle
Police Department, Seattle Fire Department) to train and exercise together for continuity
during real-world events.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Ongoing
DOT-2—Update messaging, response plans, and procedures to address winter weather, including the
following:
• Outreach to vulnerable and at-risk populations for transportation for individuals who need to
get to life-saving medical appointments (dialysis, chemotherapy).
• Coordination with healthcare and transportation partners to ensure access to medical care.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Complete
DOT-3—Update and improve plans to address continuity of transportation services, provision of
medical care, and infrastructure resiliency, including the following:
• Plans and procedures for workforce continuity and service provision.
• Coordination with local partners on evacuation and responder routes, lifeline routes, and
transportation routes.
• Technical systems and IT infrastructure (e.g. computer programs, SCADA systems).
Yes Long-
term
Removed Ongoing
DOT-4—Install security cameras on public buses to deter crime associated with civil unrest and
terrorist acts.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Metro will have at or near 100% of their fleet
equipped with cameras by the end of 2018.
Complete
DPER-1—Continue inspection of existing and new construction.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Inspection to ensure code compliance of both new
and existing building and sites are conducted for all
permit work.
Ongoing
DPER-2—Provide plan reviews for noted construction.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Inspection to ensure code compliance of both new
and existing building and sites are conducted for all
permit work.
Ongoing
DPER-3—Work with schools and fire service public educators to deliver public safety messages.
Yes Long-
term
Updated Operational (annual) fire safety inspection of schools
was initiated this past year after several years of
inaction.
Ongoing
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
219
FMD-1—Replace Alder Tower, Alder Wing and Youth Detention Facility with a new modern juvenile
justice center meeting all seismic standards. Planning is underway for the new, voter-approved $210
million Children and Family Justice Center. Completion of the new facility is expected in 2019.
Yes Long-
term
Removed New facility is now expected in 2019 rather than 2018. Complete
FMD-2—Mitigate structural damage at King County Facilities. This initiative also involves training to
determine structural damage during and after hazard events.
Yes Long-
term
Updated The Facilities Management Division has undertaken
replacement of some fire protection systems which as
a result, will reduce fire damage during hazard events.
Ongoing
FMD-3—Mitigate non-structural facility damage at King County facilities. This initiative also involves
training to determine non-structural damage during and after hazard events.
Was an
action
taken?
Short-
term
Updated The Facilities Management Division recently received
a report about serious deficiencies at the King County
Courthouse. We will be updating the response to this
issue outside of the cycle of this report.
Ongoing
KCIT-1—Enterprise Server Optimization Project. Implement a standard virtual environment at the
King County Data Center to set the foundation for the King County Public Cloud Services to expand
infr2astructure service offerings.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-2—King County TV High-Definition Upgrade. Replace obsolete station infrastructure with
industry standard high-definition and digital equipment, allowing for delivery of the highest level of
service to the citizens of King County.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-3—Countywide Telephone System Replacement. Replace obsolete telephony infrastructure and
telephone systems with a modern and feature-rich communications solution.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete by end of 2010. Ongoing
KCIT-4—Business Empowerment and User Mobility. Improve the King County wide area network to
meet business requirements and provide a solid foundation for growth within a resilient and stable
network.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
KCIT-5—Administration Building Rewire. Upgrade network cabling in King County Administration
Building to meet infrastructure standards, provide a more robust network connecti2vity to the services
provided at the facility, and take advantage of technological advancements.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
220
Yes Short-
term
Removed Complete
PH-1— Inform the public on risk-reduction techniques for a communicable disease event. “Stop
Germs, Stay Healthy” public education campaign increases awareness of healthy behaviors, including
hand washing and “cover your cough”.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Public Health promotes infection control prevention
every day as well as during outbreaks and flu season.
Current focus is on fact sheets with pictograms for
outbreaks such as hepatitis A and measles as well as
guidelines for encampments and homeless service
providers. Also actively using social media and blogs
to promote messages.
Ongoing
PH-2—Update response plans to address emerging infectious disease outbreaks, including the
following:
• The allocation of resources (antivirals, vaccine, personal protective equipment) from the
strategic national stockpile.
• Improvements to surveillance systems to address new technologies
• Leverage existing private and public partnerships (CBO, healthcare, pharmacies) to serve as
medication centers and increasing access to medications for hard-to-reach communities.
• Risk communications and messaging, including use of social media.
Yes Short-
term
Removed A number of response plans were updated including
medical countermeasures, equity response plan, risk
communication plan, and workforce mobilization
plan. Tested new systems for surveillance and plans
during hepatitis A and measles outbreaks, including
easy to understand visual display of cases and
vaccination efforts.
Completed
PH-3—Update response plans and procedures to address winter weather, extreme heat, and other
climate-related events including the following:
• Outreach to vulnerable and at-risk populations for carbon monoxide poisoning prevention.
• Transportation for individuals who need to get to life-saving medical appointments (dialysis,
chemotherapy).
• Coordination with healthcare providers and NW Healthcare Response Network to ensure
access to medical care.
• Coordination with shelter providers for first aid teams and access for people to re-charge
medical equipment.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Consolidated weather events into one extreme
weather plan, updated winter weather transportation
plan and added wildfire smoke protocols. Tested
winter weather plans, including medical appointment
protocol during 2019 snow events.
Completed
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
221
OEM-1—Inform the public on personal and community preparedness actions they can take to lessen
their need for immediate response following a disaster. “Take Winter by Storm” and “What to Do to
Make It Through” are two outreach campaigns designed to get the message across to the whole
community. These campaigns include trainings, presentations, and tools to facilitate increased
community preparedness.
Yes Long-
term
Removed Strategy is ongoing by nature and preparedness-
focused. Removed.
Ongoing
OEM-2—Create a program to facilitate training for small businesses to increase their resilience to all
hazards. Training content would include employee preparedness, business continuity, and recovery
planning. Methods of training would include workshops, tools, and one-on-one help.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Initial steps to create Business EOC and conduct pilot
test were taken in June during Cascadia Rising. As a
result of early coordination with Seattle and King
County, 7 companies representing more than 150,000
employees participated and were able to make faster
operational decisions that could protect company
resources and staff in a real event. Examples include
early evacuation notifications, avoiding traffic
disruptions, and setting up alternate modes of
communication. Continuing to work with City of
Seattle, WAEMD, and FEMA on building a Regional
BEOC model.
Ongoing
OEM-3—Manage and facilitate the Resilient King County initiative, a countywide planning process for
crafting a comprehensive long-term recovery strategy following an earthquake or major catastrophe.
Develop the Resilient King County final report and the long-term recovery plan.
Yes Short-
term
Updated Conducted facilitated discussion with Executive
Leadership Team as part of Cascadia Rising Exercise.
Will vet plan content over summer and fall 2016.
Ongoing
OEM-4—Take advantage of technological and procedural improvements in regional alert and warning
systems to provide the most effective, efficient, and cost-effective messaging to residents, businesses,
and government, especially during emergencies.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Completed launch for new Alert & Notification
system in May 2016. As a result, King County not
only has the ability to provide alerts to all 2.1 million
residents but also, 16 new cities have signed up and
have direct ability to message their residents for local
events. This allows a reduction in hazard impact as
people will have more time to prepare themselves and
their property by receiving alerts during an
emergency.
Complete
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
222
OEM-5—Continue to update and improve the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)
and the Continuity of Operations Plan.
Yes Short-
term
Removed The CEMP has been updated in 2018/2019. Complete
OEM-6—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land
uses within the jurisdiction.
Yes Short-
term
Updated Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been
incorporated into the King County Strategic Climate
Action Plan. Will also serve as a reference for
recovery.
Ongoing
OEM-7—Continue to support the countywide initiatives in this plan.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Ongoing
OEM-8—Coordinate and actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy of this plan.
Yes Short-
term
Updated County is implementing additional support for grant
administration and outreach to promote mitigation.
Ongoing
OEM-9—Continue to encourage community participation in incentive-based programs such as CRS,
FireWise, and StormReady.
Yes Short-
term
Removed Ongoing
2020 King County Hazard Mitigation Strategies
King County identified the following strategies through meetings among county departments. These
strategies were scored by each department using the prioritization criteria outlined earlier in this section.
The highest priority from each department is highlighted below. From the list of top priorities for each
department the highest countywide priorities were selected. These are:
• Integrate equity and social justice into planning, outreach, mitigation, response, and recovery
• Integrate hazards and vulnerability information into comprehensive planning
• Establish a resilient seismic transportation lifeline
STRATEGY PRIORITY (SCORE) LEAD AGENCY KEY OUTCOMES
Reduce Flood Impacts
to Unincorporated
King County Road
System 18 DLS - Roads
Lower road damage from repeated
flooding, especially in the
Snoqualmie Valley.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
223
Increase Seismic
Resilience of Bridges in
Unincorporated King
County 16 DLS - Roads
Seismic retrofits to King County
bridges, especially those supporting
the transportation seismic lifeline.
Stormwater Outfall
Erosion Hazard
Inventory 18 DNPR
Hazard inventory of stormwater
outfalls and mapping of those areas
in GIS.
Resilience in Design
and Build of Critical
Water Treatment and
Conveyance Facilities 23 DNRP
Improvements, retrofits, and new
construction of water treatment
facilities that meets seismic
resilience needs.
Landslide, Erosion, and
Sedimentation Event
Mapping 19 DNRP
Mapping of hazard areas and
establishment of GIS layers.
Sea Level Rise
Resilience in
Wastewater Facilities 18 DNRP
Measures to move or reduce risk to
wastewater facilities in areas
projected to be impacted by sea-
level rise.
Stormwater and
Surface Water Risk
Reduction 18 DNRP
Retrofits to endangered stormwater
facilities. Focus on those areas at
greatest risk of failure.
Control System
Security and
Performance 16 DNRP
Protection of wastewater system
from cyber-attacks.
GIS Emergency
Response Mapping and
Real-Time Flow Data 15 DNRP
Real time GIS updates to critical
facility information.
Emergency
Communications
Enhancements 12 DNRP
Improvements to, and resilience of,
emergency communications tools.
Emergency Event
Management System 12 DNRP
Improvements to WebEOC,
including training on it.
Flood Warning
Program 18 DNRP - Flood
Flood warning, including public
information about warning system.
Post-Flood Recovery
Efforts 19 DNRP - Flood
Resilient rebuilding following a
flood disaster.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
224
Home Elevations 18 DNRP - Flood
Elevations of homes out of base
flood elevation when acquisition is
not feasible.
Home Acquisitions and
Relocations 19 DNRP - Flood
Prioritize acquisition as a tool of
risk reduction and take advantage
of post-disaster acquisition
opportunities.
Protect and Restore
Natural Floodplain
Functions 17 DNRP - Flood
Take advantage of natural systems
to reduce flood risk and restore
flood risk areas to their natural
state.
Flood Risk Mapping 16 DNRP - Flood
Improve and update flood risk
maps, accounting for climate
change.
Public Information
Flood Activities 16 DNRP - Flood
Conduct outreach around flood
hazard information.
Flood Insurance
Promotion 16 DNRP - Flood
Promote flood insurance to all
homeowners, renters, and business
owners.
Enforce Higher
Floodplain
Management
Regulations 13 DNRP - Flood
Enforce King County’s higher
standards to prevent the creation of
new flood risk.
Manage Flood
Protection Facilities 4 DNRP - Flood
Manage flood protection facilities
to ensure they will not fail during a
major flood or earthquake.
Seismic Evaluation of
King County
Courthouse and
Maleng Regional
Justice Center 16 FMD
Evaluate the vulnerability of major
King County justice facilities and
develop a strategy to address
deficiencies.
Integrate ESJ into
Mitigation, Response,
and Recovery Activities 25 KCEM
Fully account for equity and social
justice in all planning and activities
to help ensure that disasters do not
increase inequity.
Seismic Lifeline Route
Resilience 23 KCEM
Establish transportation seismic
lifelines and begin retrofitting
vulnerable segments to a standard
that will enable effective response
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
225
and recovery following an
earthquake.
Integrate Hazard
Mitigation and
Comprehensive
Planning 21 KCEM
Integrate hazards and vulnerability
information into comprehensive
planning policies, mapping, and
related activities to prevent the
creation of new risk through
development in high hazard areas.
Engage Community
Organizations in
Emergency
Management 20 KCEM
Leverage existing community
capabilities and engage with
communities to promote
emergency preparedness and
catalogue potential needs.
Climate Integration
Training 18 KCEM
Train local jurisdictions on how to
integrate climate change
information into planning, projects,
and emergency management.
Disaster Skills Risk
Reduction Training 18 KCEM
Train communities on what to do
in a disaster and how to protect
themselves and their families.
Dam Failure Risk and
Impact Reduction 16 KCEM
Identify and remove or rehabilitate
high hazard dams and conduct
outreach on dam safety for good
condition dams that will not be
removed.
Wildfire Preparedness
and Risk Reduction 15 KCEM
Convene partners engaged in
wildfire planning activities to
coordinate community outreach
and reactions to new mapping and
potential building codes.
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Grant
Support 15 KCEM
Support local jurisdictions who
have little experience in developing
applications for FEMA HMA.
Public Assistance
Grant Support 15 KCEM
Support local jurisdictions and
county agencies with PA following
a disaster declaration and expand
the use of PA Mitigation funds.
Language Accessible
Video Emergency
Messaging 26 PHSKC
Develop video and other
emergency messaging that is
accessible to non-English speakers
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
226
and those who are blind or hearing
impaired.
King County Facilities
Indoor Air Quality
Monitoring Network 16 PHSKC
Monitor and mitigate air quality in
King County facilities.
Medical Gas Seismic
Detection &
Emergency Shut Off 10 PHSKC
Install automatic gas detection and
shutoff systems for hospitals and
medical centers.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
227
Reduce Flood Impacts to the Unincorporated King County Road System
Lead
Jennifer Knauer,
King County
Department of
Local Services,
Road Services
Division
Partners
King County Flood
Control District
Cities
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 4, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$500,000 (Snoqualmie
Valley study)
Additional design,
construction costs TBD
Vision
Reduce the impacts of major river flooding to the unincorporated King County Road system within
the Snoqualmie Valley and other major river valleys
Description
The Snoqualmie Valley is located approximately 8-10 miles east of Seattle, Washington and chronic
localized and larger-scale flooding regularly impacts and closes roads within the floodplain. During
major flood events, King County has identified that countywide, eleven roads are frequently closed, of
which ten are located in the Snoqualmie River Basin.
During major flood events, cross-Snoqualmie Valley routes are not passable and approximately
15,000+ residents are cut off from emergency services and accessing other critical destinations during
a flood event. When cross-valley road closures occur, they impact over 25,000 drivers per day. There
is a need for a permanent flood tolerant cross-valley route, in part due to growth in eastern King
County cities and increasing traffic volumes on unincorporated King County roads. In addition to
selecting, designing and constructing one cross-valley flood tolerant route, there is a vital need for
improved resiliency across other unincorporated King County roads in flood prone portions of the
Snoqualmie Valley, as well as other unincorporated King County floodplain locations. A joint study is
proposed to be completed by the King County Road Services Division and the King County Flood
Control District. The purpose of the study is to evaluate a subset of primary cross-valley routes for the
purpose of identifying a cost-effective option that can be built to withstand major flood events and
provide east-west access across the valley during major flood events.
Improving the flood resiliency of existing county roads, as well as designing and constructing a flood
tolerant cross-Snoqualmie Valley route will be complex and costly. King County Road Services
Division continues to struggle to meet its preservation service goals for unincorporated King County
roads and bridges, due to current and future forecast financial constraints. The activities identified
through this strategy are unfunded needs and a funding strategy will need to be prepared and
successfully implemented.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund cross-valley study
• Scope cross-valley study
5-Year Objectives
• Complete cross-valley study
• Complete planning level cost
estimates for study
• Pursue grant opportunities
Long-Term Objectives
• Obtain grant funds to
design and build a flood
tolerant cross-valley route
• Construct the route
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Fund study to evaluate options to assess which major roadway across the Snoqualmie River Valley
may be improved to withstand chronic river flooding.
• Initiate and complete the study
Performance Measure
• Study completion
• Route selected, as informed by the study
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
228
Increase Seismic Resilience of Bridges in Unincorporated King County
Lead
Jennifer Knauer,
King County
Department of
Local Services,
Roads Division
Partners
Cities
KC EM
WSDOT
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 4, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$500,000 (study costs)
TBD design and
construction costs
FEMA BRIC Grants
Vision
Improved seismic stability for unincorporated King County lifeline route bridges
Description
Evaluate the seismic stability of unincorporated King County lifeline route bridges and complete
seismic retrofits as informed by the results of the study. Seismic improvements to unincorporated
King County lifeline route bridges were completed from 1995 through 2008, to retrofit these bridges
to level 2 standards, the standard adopted by the King County Council that reflected the
contemporary standards of that time. Subsequent to completion of these retrofits, seismic evaluation
standards have changed. This strategy involves evaluating all unincorporated King County lifeline
bridge routes to a retrofit level 3 (highest level), which reflects the current evaluation standard.
Bridges retrofitted to a seismic level 3 would likely withstand a seismic event and still be in serviceable
status. Outcomes from this strategy includes a prioritized list of lifeline bridge seismic retrofit needs
and total program cost estimates. This strategy also involves securing the funding and completing the
seismic retrofits identified within the prioritized needs list. King County Road Services Division
continues to struggle to meet its preservation service goals for unincorporated King County roads and
bridges due to current and future forecast funding constraints. The activities identified through this
strategy are unfunded needs and a funding strategy will need to be prepared and successfully
implemented.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund UKC bridge seismic
assessment study
• Complete seismic assessment
study
5-Year Objectives
• Secure capital funds
Long-Term Objectives
• Complete seismic
upgrades to UKC
lifeline route bridges
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Secure funds for the study
• Complete the study and produce prioritized list of lifeline route bridge seismic retrofit needs and
costs
• Prepare funding strategy
• Secure capital funds in support of seismic retrofits
• Complete seismic retrofits
Performance Measure
• Study completed
• Funding strategy prepared and successfully implemented
• Bridge seismic retrofits completed
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
229
Stormwater Outfall Erosion Hazard Inventory
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health associated with
landslides, severe erosion, and sediment deposition caused or threatened by discharges from
stormwater system outfalls, both public and private. There are hundreds of stormwater system
outfalls throughout unincorporated King County that discharge onto slopes or into ravines that are
prone to landslides or severe erosion, or where sediment deposition is a hazard downstream. Many
of these are known from past events but are not inventoried in any organized way. Many others are
not known without an inventory effort to identify them.
Description
1. Establish a GIS mapping layer/database to inventory locations where the discharges from
stormwater system outfalls have caused or pose a risk of causing landslides, severe erosion,
and/or sediment deposition impacts downstream. Include in the inventory a description of the
landslide and erosion processes at play if known or determined through geotechnical evaluation.
Include potential causal agents such as slope, soil composition, drainage area, and discharge rates.
Include descriptions of observed or potential impacts to structures, facilities, roads, driveways,
water quality, and fish habitat. Include a description of the potential mitigation improvement
(e.g., tightline, channel stabilization, settling facility, etc.) and its approximate cost.
2. Populate the GIS database with known incidents of erosive problems downstream of outfalls. If
additional information is needed on an incident, conduct a field investigation to collect it. In
addition to known incidents, review existing stormwater system maps, landslide hazard area
maps, erosion hazard area maps, and steep slope hazard area maps to identify outfalls that are
potentially at risk of causing erosive problems downstream. Conduct field investigations of these
outfalls and their drainage path downstream to determine the nature of any hazards that might
exist. If hazards do exist, inventory the location and record the information mentioned above in
the GIS database.
3. Use the GIS inventory information to identify and prioritize hazard mitigation projects for
feasibility analysis to determine an updated cost and other information needed for ranking against
other competing projects. This information can also be used to provide technical assistance to
affected property owners if funding is not readily available for a mitigation project. In addition,
the information would be beneficial to setting mitigation requirements during the County’s
permit review of new development projects upstream of problematic outfalls.
At this time, funding has not been appropriated for a program that would implement this mitigation
strategy. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that will consider this
along with other along with other program ideas for minimizing risk and optimizing stormwater
management.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete Stormwater Services
strategic plan to determine
support for this program.
5-Year Objectives
If there is support for the
program in the strategic plan, seek
funding for its implementation.
Long-Term Objectives
• N/A
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
230
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Establish GIS database as described under mitigation strategy.
• Populate GIS database with outfall locations known to be a problem based on past incidents.
• Populate database with outfall locations that could be a problem based on hazards that exist
downstream either mapped or determined in the field.
• Use the GIS database to identify and prioritize mitigation projects for feasibility analysis to
determine an updated cost and other information needed for ranking the project against other
competing projects.
• Implement the highest priority projects as funding becomes available. Until funding becomes
available, implement stop gap measures (e.g., sandbagging) if needed to minimize severity of
hazard.
• Where funding is not readily available for a mitigation project, offer technical assistance to
affected property owners.
Performance Measure
• Number of problematic outfalls inventoried
• Number of problematic outfalls fixed
• Number of property owners to which technical assistance was provided for private solutions
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
231
Resilience in Design and Build of Critical Water Treatment and Conveyance Facilities
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
Strategic Climate Action
Plan
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget, Revenue
Backed.
Vision
WTD Treatment Plant Facilities and Conveyance system structures are protected against identified
potential vulnerabilities, including but not limited to flooding, earthquakes, large-scale power outages
and hazardous materials spills into the conveyance system (whether those spills are accidental or
deliberate, e.g. terrorist action).
Description
Design, build, and retrofit facilities to meet or exceed seismic standards, including essential equipment.
Apply current seismic standards to all renovation or replacement of existing facilities and/or
equipment.
In April 2018 the division completed a Resiliency and Vulnerability Review of its entire conveyance
system to identify critical structures and facilities. The project which was conducted by an engineering
consultant conducted initial structural earthquake assessments of the key facilities. The report included
recommendations for mitigation projects in order of priority. Work is underway on multiple projects.
2-Year Objectives
• Vulnerability assessment
review.
• Emergency power systems
review.
• Complete retrofit of 3
facilities identified as most
critical/vulnerable.
5-Year Objectives
• Implement changes identified
in the reviews conducted in
the 2-year window.
• Update to spill response
procedures is completed.
• Complete retrofit of 6
additional facilities in order of
priority/vulnerability.
Long-Term Objectives
• Facilities that
are resilient and able
to withstand damage
from earthquakes or
other hazards
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Review existing earthquake vulnerability assessments and identify facilities and structures that
need further assessments.
• Review existing emergency power generation capacities at treatment plants, offsite facilities and
interceptors (pipelines) to identify vulnerabilities and response & restoration protocol
enhancements.
• Review existing spill response procedures and protocols for hazardous materials spills (both
accidental and intentional releases) that impact flows into the WTD system. Update and
coordinate emergency procedures with key fire departments and the Office of Emergency
Management.
Performance Measure
• % of buildings, pipelines and equipment that are built to seismic resilience standards.
• % of identified vulnerabilities and plan priorities addressed with improvements and resolutions.
• % of retrofit projects planned that are completed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
232
Landslide, Erosion, and Sedimentation Event Mapping
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
Cooperating agencies
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 4
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
Develop a GIS mapping layer to establish a record of observed landslide, erosion, and sedimentation
events. Include in the record a description of landslide and erosion processes if available from
geotechnical evaluation. Identify landslide, erosion, and sedimentation events caused by stormwater
discharge. Use this information to identify and prioritize corrections and mitigations to reduce events.
These corrections and mitigations would be prioritized as part of the overall WLRD Stormwater
Services strategic plan (currently development) to ensure the highest risk areas are addressed first. At
this time, funding has not been secured for implementation of a corrective program for stormwater
discharges that cause or contribute to landslides, erosion, and sedimentation events.
Description
Mapping of landslide, and high erosion areas and sedimentation events provides current information
for development review and infrastructure planning, and utility protection measures to be
implemented. Reconnaissance has identified multiple sites of stream ravine slope destabilization due to
stormwater discharge from both public and private stormwater conveyance systems. Multiple
measures are readily available to relocate discharge outfall, dissipate flow erosion potential, and
implement flow control measures to reduce landslide risk and channel erosion. Sediment discharge
and debris flow incidences cause increasing cost of sediment management and property damage and
environmental impact to receiving stream habitat. This effort will also reduce inform the business risk
exposure of assets that drain to locations impacted by past events. This could result in and identify
proper use of different maintenance techniques, effective inspection/maintenance intervals, and the
priority of improvement projects needed seek to avoid emergency repairs.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop mapping to include
landslide prone areas, event
tracking and include highly
erosive process. Identify impact
areas and vulnerability to
stormwater discharges.
5-Year Objectives
• Develop program to correct
stormwater discharges causing
landside activation and high
erosion processes. Provide
assistance to private system
owners to correct stormwater
discharges to unstable slopes
in high impact areas
Long-Term Objectives
• Reduce progressive
degradation of
streams, wetlands and
lake habitats and
reduced conveyance
and flood protection
capacity resulting
from sediment
deposition.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Establish ArcGIS mapping of landslide and erosion hazard areas that identify documented
incidences, type of landslide or erosion processes and impact zones.
• Prioritize local systems with high impacts to community, public infrastructure, and environment.
• Identify corrective actions and mitigation strategies to reduce impacts and emergency response
services provided by King County.
• These actions present opportunities to improve system resilience and capacity buffering from the
impacts of climate change variability.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
233
Performance Measure
• Mapping area completed in relation to unincorporated area.
• Identification and prioritization of problematic outfalls
• Strategy to address individual sites.
• Technical assistance to citizens to implement corrective actions
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
234
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health resulting from:
1) The failure of existing stormwater and surface water infrastructure due to aging. Growing
numbers of stormwater and surface water infrastructure assets operated by or under the purview
of the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) are at or approaching the end of their
effective life where structural failure could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or fish
habitat damage.
2) More frequent overflow or functional impairment of existing stormwater and surface water
infrastructure due to expected increases in rainfall intensities over the next 50 years from climate
change. This too could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
3) The lack of stormwater control infrastructure for managing runoff from lands that were
developed before stormwater controls were required on new developments. Over two thirds of
the developed landscape in King County was built before modern stormwater controls were
required on new developments. This lack of runoff quantity and quality control has been linked
to degraded water quality and aquatic health in numerous streams and other water bodies
throughout King County as documented by a network of monitoring stations. It may also
contribute to existing flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
Description
WLRD is planning to do the following to achieve the vision/objective stated above:
1) Proactively manage existing infrastructure through inspections, maintenance, risk assessments,
and repair/replacement of the highest risk infrastructure components before they fail to avoid the
high cost of emergency repairs and the damages or injuries that can result from component
failure. This proactive management program is already in place for WLRD-operated
infrastructure assets but needs further policy development for assets managed by private parties.
WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that should address this
policy development need.
2) Develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to future runoff quantities
that will be generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate change. To
ensure new infrastructure is resilient, this methodology and standards will be incorporated into
the County’s stormwater regulations for new development and redevelopment. It will also be
used by the County to assess the need for and design of future infrastructure improvements to
reduce risk. Development of this methodology and standards is a priority of the County’s
Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has been started but additional funding will be needed
to finish it.
3) Build new and modify existing stormwater control infrastructure to mitigate for the lack of runoff
quantity and quality controls on older developed lands. Projects that do this are called
“stormwater retrofits” and several pilot projects are currently underway at various locations
across King County. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan and
retrofit prioritization framework that will give direction to future planning and implementation of
stormwater retrofits. A formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and steward future
retrofits is currently unfunded.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
235
2-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 48 high risk facility
assets and continue inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on remaining
inventory of WLRD facility
assets. Complete Stormwater
Services strategic plan to
identify policy direction for
assets managed by private
parties.
• Seek funding to develop
methodology/standards
5-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 120 high risk facility
assets and continue
inspections, maintenance, and
risk assessments on remaining
inventory of facility assets.
• Develop
methodology/standards
Long-Term Objectives
• Implement actions to
reduce risk on 192
high risk facility assets
by 2027 and continue
inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on
remaining inventory
of facility assets.
Implement actions to
reduce risk on any
newly identified high
risk facility assets.
• Incorporate new
standards into
stormwater regulation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Implement actions to reduce risk on high risk facility assets.
• Seek funding to further develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to
future runoff quantities generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate
change.
• Continue progress on existing pilot projects to inform future stormwater retrofits. Complete the
Stormwater Services strategic plan and retrofit prioritization framework.
• Complete development of the methodology and standards described at left and vet with elected
officials and community stakeholders (e.g., developers, NGOs, tribes, etc.)
• Obtain funding for and begin implementing a formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and
steward future retrofits.
• Incorporate the new methodology and standards into the County’s stormwater regulations for
new development and redevelopment. Conduct planning efforts to identify and prioritize
predicted infrastructure problems using the new methodology and standards. This can and should
be merged with the planning program described below for stormwater retrofits. Implement
highest priority projects to address predicted infrastructure problems.
• Conduct planning efforts to identify, prioritize, and steward stormwater retrofits. This can and
should be merged with the efforts mentioned above for addressing predicted infrastructure
problems resulting from climate change. Implement highest priority retrofits.
Performance Measure
• High risk facility assets mitigated.
• Climate change infrastructure problems solved
• Acres of developed land retrofitted with stormwater controls
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
236
Sea Level Rise Resilience in Wastewater Facilities
Lead
DNRP WTD
Partners
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Sea Level Rise (Flooding)
Goal 4, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
Vision
Waterfront wastewater treatment facilities and road networks that will be affected by the rise of sea
level due to global warming are built and enhanced to improve system resilience to these impacts.
Description
Developing and implementing adaptation strategies for cost-effective measures to address, through
capital improvement and asset management programs, the vulnerability of 24 major and 380 minor
facilities and 52 miles of conveyance at risk of saltwater inflow and/or inundation. The facilities were
identified by a recent update to the WTD analysis of the wastewater system to identify facilities at risk
for saltwater inflow and inundation from future sea level rise, existing and predicted high tides, and
storm surges. This update was based on recent (2018) local and probabilistic sea level rise projections
developed by network of governmental and non-governmental organizations and universities.
A parallel effort is necessary for roadways in unincorporated King County, especially on Vashon
Island and with ferry docks that service the islands. This will be addressed through the KC Roads
strategy.
2-Year Objectives
• Work is ongoing
5-Year Objectives
• Work is ongoing
Long-Term Objectives
• Facilities that are
resilient and able
to remain operational
as the sea level rises
Implementation Plan/Actions
• The facilities were identified by a recent update to the WTD analysis of the wastewater system to
identify facilities at risk for saltwater inflow and inundation from future sea level rise, existing and
predicted high tides, and storm surges.
Performance Measure
• % of identified projects to improve resilience to sea-level rise completed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
237
Stormwater and Surface Water Infrastructure Risk Reduction
Lead
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
SWM Fee; FCD Grant;
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation
Vision
To minimize risk to public safety, properties, and water quality/aquatic health resulting from:
4) The failure of existing stormwater and surface water infrastructure due to aging. Growing
numbers of stormwater and surface water infrastructure assets operated by or under the purview
of the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) are at or approaching the end of their
effective life where structural failure could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or fish
habitat damage.
5) More frequent overflow or functional impairment of existing stormwater and surface water
infrastructure due to expected increases in rainfall intensities over the next 50 years from climate
change. This too could cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
6) The lack of stormwater control infrastructure for managing runoff from lands that were
developed before stormwater controls were required on new developments. Over two thirds of
the developed landscape in King County was built before modern stormwater controls were
required on new developments. This lack of runoff quantity and quality control has been linked
to degraded water quality and aquatic health in numerous streams and other water bodies
throughout King County as documented by a network of monitoring stations. It may also
contribute to existing flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and/or habitat damage.
Description
WLRD is planning to do the following to achieve the vision/objective stated above:
4) Proactively manage existing infrastructure through inspections, maintenance, risk assessments,
and repair/replacement of the highest risk infrastructure components before they fail to avoid the
high cost of emergency repairs and the damages or injuries that can result from component
failure. This proactive management program is already in place for WLRD-operated
infrastructure assets but needs further policy development for assets managed by private parties.
WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan that should address this
policy development need.
5) Develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to future runoff quantities
that will be generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate change. To
ensure new infrastructure is resilient, this methodology and standards will be incorporated into
the County’s stormwater regulations for new development and redevelopment. It will also be
used by the County to assess the need for and design of future infrastructure improvements to
reduce risk. Development of this methodology and standards is a priority of the County’s
Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has been started but additional funding will be needed
to finish it.
6) Build new and modify existing stormwater control infrastructure to mitigate for the lack of runoff
quantity and quality controls on older developed lands. Projects that do this are called
“stormwater retrofits” and several pilot projects are currently underway at various locations
across King County. WLRD Stormwater Services is currently developing a strategic plan and
retrofit prioritization framework that will give direction to future planning and implementation of
stormwater retrofits. A formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and steward future
retrofits is currently unfunded.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
238
2-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 48 high risk facility
assets and continue inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on remaining
inventory of WLRD facility
assets. Complete Stormwater
Services strategic plan to
identify policy direction for
assets managed by private
parties.
• Seek funding to develop
methodology/standards
5-Year Objectives
• Implement actions to reduce
risk on 120 high risk facility
assets and continue
inspections, maintenance, and
risk assessments on remaining
inventory of facility assets.
• Develop
methodology/standards
Long-Term Objectives
• Implement actions to
reduce risk on 192
high risk facility assets
by 2027 and continue
inspections,
maintenance, and risk
assessments on
remaining inventory
of facility assets.
Implement actions to
reduce risk on any
newly identified high
risk facility assets.
• Incorporate new
standards into
stormwater regulation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Implement actions to reduce risk on high risk facility assets.
• Seek funding to further develop a methodology and standards for predicting and designing to
future runoff quantities generated by the increased rainfall intensities expected from climate
change.
• Continue progress on existing pilot projects to inform future stormwater retrofits. Complete the
Stormwater Services strategic plan and retrofit prioritization framework.
• Complete development of the methodology and standards described at left and vet with elected
officials and community stakeholders (e.g., developers, NGOs, tribes, etc.)
• Obtain funding for and begin implementing a formal planning program to identify, prioritize, and
steward future retrofits.
• Incorporate the new methodology and standards into the County’s stormwater regulations for
new development and redevelopment. Conduct planning efforts to identify and prioritize
predicted infrastructure problems using the new methodology and standards. This can and should
be merged with the planning program described below for stormwater retrofits. Implement
highest priority projects to address predicted infrastructure problems.
• Conduct planning efforts to identify, prioritize, and steward stormwater retrofits. This can and
should be merged with the efforts mentioned above for addressing predicted infrastructure
problems resulting from climate change. Implement highest priority retrofits.
Performance Measure
• High risk facility assets mitigated.
• Climate change infrastructure problems solved
• Acres of developed land retrofitted with stormwater controls
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
239
Control System Security and Performance
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Cyber Incident
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
General Fund
Vision
The operational control system for Wastewater Treatment Operations is secure from cyber-attack or
system failure.
Description
The wastewater treatment system is operated from three control centers which monitor the facilities
and conveyance system that flows to the treatment plants. The Ovation project is a multi-year, multi-
million-dollar upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Division’s legacy control systems. WTD is in the
process of updating its control systems. Vulnerability assessments are designed into the Ovation
project. When the system is operational, a security audit would be conducted to ensure that policies
and procedures are in place to protect the system
2-Year Objectives
• Project is staged to include in
the 2-year timeframe upgrades
to system controls in order of
priority based on assessed
vulnerability.
• Upgraded systems will be tested
in this time frame.
5-Year Objectives
• All control systems are
upgraded and have passed
security testing.
• Completion of project.
Long-Term Objectives
• A secure system.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• This is a multi-year multi-million-dollar project that is being staged by addressing the most
vulnerable systems first and working through the system.
Performance Measure
• % of QA/QC system security tests passed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
240
GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real-Time Flow Data
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
KCIT-Geographic
Information Systems (GIS)
King County Roads
Services Division
King County Office of
Emergency Management
Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
Critical information conveyed in the WTD/DNRP Emergency response map is available and updated
in real time.
Description
Update the King County facilities Emergency Response maps with the current priority roads, bridges,
earthquake liquefaction, inundation and landslide zones and gas/petroleum pipelines, under-laid with
King County facilities and conveyance lines and emergency outfalls to facilitate emergency response
and continuity of operations. Make this information available through a password-protected website
for select users. Explore connecting the map to real-time flow data.
A GIS emergency mapping site is now operational on the WTD intranet that shows facilities and
conveyance system. Working on moving it to an internet site so that it can be accessed 24/7 by off
duty personnel.
2-Year Objectives
• Fully deploy the system where
it can be accessed remotely
without having to log into the
KC computer system.
5-Year Objectives
• System is tested and use in
activations.
• Necessary modifications are
made.
• Project completion
Long-Term Objectives
• Emergency mapping
is reliable and
accessible.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work is ongoing and includes:
• Work with KCIT to consider improvements that include integration with real-time flow data,
integration with Roads Emergency updates and migration of mapping tool from intranet to
password secured Internet site.
• Testing to ensure access and timeliness and accuracy of information conveyed.
• Use in emergency activations.
• Socialize process and tools with partners such as Public Health Seattle and King County to aid in
environmental health emergency response.
Performance Measure
• % of successful attempts to securely access the mapping tool.
• Ratio of accuracy and timeliness as compared to real life in real time.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
241
Emergency Communications Enhancements
Lead
Allen Alston
Partners
PSERN Project
King County Radio
Services/KCIT
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
Ability to effectively communicate in large scale emergency situations where the telecommunications
may be disrupted.
Description
The division performed an assessment to determine the number of KC 800 MHz radios necessary to
support operational readiness in the event of a widespread telecommunications failure. Currently all
key operational facilities and offsite operation and maintenance vehicles are equipped with 800 MHz
radios, constituting WTD’s core emergency communications method.
A regional replacement project is underway to replace the entire 800 MHz system. It is managed by a
regional agency Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. Inventories have been provided to PSERN.
The King County Office of Emergency Management has deployed a communications tool called
KCInform. It has been incorporated into the division’s operational procedures
2-Year Objectives
• Deploy the new radios.
• Train and test the radios and
other emergency
communications.
• Analyze benefits and costs of
FirstNet
5-Year Objectives
• Continue training and testing
of communications to ensure
maximum communications
reliability in emergencies.
Long-Term Objectives
• Redundant emergency
communications are
reliable.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Deploy the new radio equipment and incorporate into the day to day communications protocols.
• Regularly test radios and other emergency communications methods, including KCInform and
FirstNet (if used).
Performance Measure
• % of successful communications systems tests.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
242
Emergency Event Management System
Lead
DNRP Water
Treatment
Division
Partners
King County Office of
Emergency Management
King County Information
Technology (KCIT)
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Operating Budget
Vision
WTD manages and shares emergency response and continuity of operations activities across the
division’s five treatment plants and the division headquarters in the King Street Center using
WEBEOC and other systems as necessary.
Description
Assess WEBEOC’s ability to manage information and communication within the division and with its
34 component agencies, and especially the discrete tracking of multiple incidents.
Continue working with the WEBEOC team, KCIT and others as necessary to explore alternative or
additional solutions if WEBEOC can’t meet all requirements.
2-Year Objectives
• Test current system for a
variety of scenarios.
• Identify and work through
questions and gaps identified.
• Consider alternatives where
WEBEOC doesn’t fulfill
requirements.
5-Year Objectives
• Deploy an operational system
or systems.
• Document, train to and test
the system(s).
Long-Term Objectives
• There is a single
system or integrated
systems (whether
manual or not)
sufficient to manage
emergency events.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Test use of WEBEOC for a variety of scenarios with multiple contributors.
• Identify and work through questions and gaps.
• Consider alternatives where WEBEOC doesn’t fulfill requirements.
• Document progress and final systems approach.
• Communicate systems approach to users and stakeholders.
• Develop and deliver trainings on the use of the system(s).
• Test the system(s).
• Continuously improve the system(s).
Performance Measure
• Post-test system performance ratings.
• Post use (activations) system performance ratings.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
243
Flood Warning Program
Lead Points of
Contact
King County
River &
Floodplain
Management
Section, Office of
Emergency
Management
Partner Points of Contact
Cities and special purpose
districts, US Army Corps
of Engineers, NOAA,
FEMA Region 10
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing resources
Strategy Vision/Objective
When flooding is imminent, having a robust notification system helps people who live, work, or travel
through floodprone areas prepare themselves and their property for the impacts of flooding. It can
also mean fewer flood losses and less damage.
Mitigation Strategy
The River and Floodplain Management Section operates the Flood Warning Program, which includes
a Flood Warning Center that opens when river systems reach specified flows or heights. The Flood
Warning Center gives people that live, work, or travel through floodprone areas early notifications and
the opportunity to call in and receive information about ongoing flooding issues. The Center also
coordinates with local first responders, the Office of Emergency Management, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, and other stakeholders to ensure the region is as ready as possible to respond to flooding
problems.
2-Year Objectives
• Improved outreach efforts.
5-Year Objectives
• Annual exercises are
conducted to prepare the
region for flooding.
Long-Term Objectives
• Smooth operation of
the Flood Warning
Program and
integration with local
communities’
programs.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue monitoring the status of streamgages to ensure they are collecting data accurately.
Streamgages provide the underlying data that are used as the basis for Flood Alert notifications
and openings of the Flood Warning Center.
2. Review on an annual basis the various components of the Flood Warning Program and make
improvements where necessary.
3. Conduct an annual flood response exercise with other agencies to ensure the region is prepared
for flood response and recovery actions necessary. Write up an after-action report.
4. Improve public outreach materials such as flood inundation maps and online interactive map
applications that show the inundation areas of the four flood phases.
Performance Measure
• Subscribers to the Flood Alert app.
• CRS points for Activity 610.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
244
Post-Flood Recovery Efforts
Lead Points of Contact
DNRP Water and Land
Resources Division; King
County Office of
Emergency Management;
King County Permitting
Division
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Flood
Control District; FEMA
Region 10; Washington
Department of Ecology;
Washington Division of
Emergency Management
Hazards
Mitigated
/ Goals
Addressed
Flood
Goal 3, 5,
12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood Control
District; FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Grants;
Increased Cost of Compliance;
FEMA Public Assistance
Section 406 Mitigation
Strategy Vision/Objective
After a major flood event, there are many opportunities to rebuild in a more resilient way. Being
prepared to rapidly address them is key to realizing those opportunities.
Many mitigation grants, including the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, can take over 5
years from obligation to a property owner having their house acquired. King County is uniquely
positioned to utilize local resources to complete mitigation projects much quicker to help property
owners with flood-damaged property.
Mitigation Strategy
While many other flood mitigation strategies referenced in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be used to
reduce future flood risk, a separate mitigation strategy for post-flood actions is necessary. Property
owners are often more willing to sell and consider mitigation efforts after a flood. Additionally,
conducting substantial damage determinations quickly is important for flood insurance policyholders
to be able to access Increased Cost of Compliance coverage funds for rebuilding. King County needs
to be prepared before a flood occurs to move mitigation efforts forward quickly.
This strategy should also consider the permitting environment after a major flood and consider short-
term rebuilding moratoriums, permit assistance, and substantial damage letters for Increased Cost of
Compliance claims. Additionally, an update to the comprehensive plan may be needed to address
long-term recovery efforts.
2-Year Objectives
• Communications plan
prepared.
• Substantial damage strategy
prepared and deployable.
5-Year Objectives
• Substantial damage assessments
have either taken place or have
been practiced.
• Communication plan reviewed.
Long-Term Objectives
• Successful mitigation
efforts occur after
major flood events.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Prepare communications plan prior to a flood event for reaching affected property owner to
inform them of mitigation grant opportunities to purchase their damaged property or elevate their
home.
2. Ready a set of funds to deploy quickly after a major flood event.
3. Create a deployable substantial damage inspection strategy and team, and prepare the team to
rapidly conduct substantial damage determinations after a flood event or other wide-spread
natural disaster.
4. Inspect flood protection facilities and other public infrastructure to ensure public safety is
protected and to also identify opportunities for applying for FEMA Public Assistance Section 406
mitigation funding.
Performance Measures
• Property owners engaged after flood event.
• Employees trained on substantial damage assessments.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
245
Home Elevations
Lead Points of
Contact
King County
River &
Floodplain
Management
Section;
Permitting
Division
Partner Points of Contact
King County Flood
Control District, FEMA
Region 10; Washington
Department of Ecology,
Washington Division of
Emergency Management
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District; FEMA
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance grants
Vision
Elevating floodprone homes is an important tool in making buildings safer from flooding. The
buildings will be better able to withstand inundation and a family’s, or occupant’s belongings will be
well above the expected level of the 1% annual chance flood. The result will be less risk to people,
pets, and property as floodwater remains below the finished floor of elevated homes.
Description
Home elevations are appropriate in areas where floodwaters are slow moving and relatively shallow,
offer significant warning time, and are not subject to channel migration hazards. In areas of flash
floods, fast-moving floodwaters, and channel migration, the most appropriate mitigation strategy is
acquisition.
King County and the King County Flood Control District have a robust home elevation grant
program for properties in the Snoqualmie River basin that has elevated nearly 80 homes. Elevation
projects, however, are complex and require significant public investments from the County, Flood
Control District, or FEMA. Typically, home elevations cost over $200,000. Current standards require
homes to be elevated to the higher of 3 feet above the 1% annual chance flood elevation and 1 foot
above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation.
Most homeowners prefer to elevate on enclosed foundations like a crawlspace or full story enclosure.
This technique, when done with proper flood openings, can be a safe alternative, but can lead to
negative consequences such as future owners converting the lower level to finished living space, thus
reducing the benefit of the home elevation. Elevating on post or piling foundation techniques lessens
the likelihood of lower level conversion, although to some, results in a visually less desirable home.
There is a balance that the public elevation grant program needs to weigh between producing homes
that people think look nice and homes that are likely to remain safe from flooding for 50 years.
2-Year Objectives
• Have code compliance strategy
implemented.
5-Year Objectives
• Home elevations grants are
awarded outside of the
Snoqualmie Valley.
Long-Term Objectives
• All homes in shallow
and slow-moving
floodplains are
elevated at least 3 feet
above the 1% annual
chance flood
elevation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
246
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue requiring home elevations to have the lowest floor elevated to 3 feet above the 1%
annual chance flood elevation or 1 foot above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Continue
requiring a nonconversion agreement to protect the lower enclosed levels from being converted to
living space.
2. Create a strategy to address potential code compliance issues that make elevated structures more
dangerous, including addressing:
a. Potential to convert enclosed lower level into living space.
b. Potential to install noncompliant utilities in lower level.
c. Potential to block flood openings.
d. Potential to rent out lower level.
3. Complete home elevations in appropriate floodprone areas outside of the Snoqualmie Valley,
including in coastal floodplain areas.
4. Encourage grantees to elevate using post or piling foundation techniques rather than full story
enclosures.
Performance Measure
• Repetitive loss properties elevated.
• Reduced flood insurance claims.
• Number of homes successfully and compliantly elevated.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
247
Home Acquisitions and Relocations
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River &
Floodplain
Management Section;
Ecological Restoration
and Engineering
Services Section
Partner Points of Contact
Snoqualmie Watershed Forum,
Snohomish Basin Salmon
Recovery Forum, WRIA 9
Watershed Ecosystem Forum,
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery
Council, Puget Sound Partnership,
King County Flood Control
District
Hazards
Mitigated
/ Goals
Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District, FEMA
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance grants,
Salmon Recovery Board
Grants, Floodplains by
Design
Strategy Vision/Objective
Acquiring floodprone properties, removing buildings, and restoring the property to a natural state is
the most effective strategy to reduce flood risk in perpetuity. Fewer families living in floodprone areas
and fewer businesses operating in floodprone areas so the region recovers quicker after a major flood.
Mitigation Strategy
Property acquisitions have been a tool that King County has employed for many decades to reduce
flood risk. Acquisitions are done on a willing seller basis and result in the demolition or removal of the
building from the property. Sometimes the seller moves the house to a location outside of the
floodplain. Acquisitions are mostly fee simple purchases.
While acquisition is the most effective tool to eliminate flood risk, many people perceive downsides,
including that acquisitions mean lost tax revenue and that a checkerboard approach leaves
neighborhood with missing pieces. Wherever possible, a neighborhood or area-specific strategy is the
best approach.
Acquisitions also offer many additional benefits including enhanced natural floodplain functions,
floodwater storage, and recreation potential. Because of multiple benefits, acquisitions can be done by
various agencies for different primary purposes. Some are done for ecological restoration or salmon
habitat protection while others are done primarily for flood risk reduction. An area of new
opportunity for flood risk reduction acquisitions is along the unincorporated coast on Vashon-Maury
Island. Very few have been completed for flood risk reduction purposes, but as sea levels rise and
coastal flooding worsens, King County needs to be prepared for coastal shoreline acquisitions.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop prioritized acquisition
list.
5-Year Objectives
• Complete acquisitions in
coastal areas.
Long-Term Objectives
• Acquire as many floodprone
properties as possible.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Continue proactively purchasing floodprone properties for the purpose of flood risk reduction.
2. Accelerate coastal floodplain acquisitions.
3. Create and maintain a prioritized acquisition list so that properties can be purchased whenever the
opportunity arises.
4. Consider other tools to purchase land over time or future development rights, such as a program
where a property owner receives an upfront payment with an agreement that the County will fully
purchase the property if it’s flooded or the owner seeks to sell.\
5. Purchase and remove infrastructure as part of neighborhood-level acquisitions.
Performance Measures
• Number of acquisitions per year.
• Percentage of flood hazard areas owned by private landowners with buildings.
• Repetitive loss properties mitigated.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
248
Protect and Restore Natural Floodplain Functions
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division
Partner Points of Contact
Snoqualmie Watershed
Forum, Snohomish Basin
Salmon Recovery Forum,
WRIA 9 Watershed
Ecosystem Forum, WRIA
8 Salmon Recovery
Council, Puget Sound
Partnership, King County
Flood Control District
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 3, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance
Grants, Floodplains by
Design, King County
Flood Control District
Vision
Flooding is a natural process. Rivers and coastlines evolve and change because of flooding.
Encouraging the protection and restoration of natural functions of floodplains is key in creating
healthy and resilient systems.
Description
The natural functions of floodplains include storing floodwater and lowering flood heights and
velocities, all of which reduces flood risk. Natural coastlines attenuate waves distribute sediment and
large wood on beaches, and allow coastal erosion, all of which reduce coastal wave energy on
properties in the floodplain. King County has a robust focus on protecting and restoring natural
floodplain functions, but progress still needs to be made to accelerate progress and connect
restoration projects to flood risk reduction projects.
Additionally, upland forested areas provide a source of natural functions that reduces fast runoff,
manages sediment flow, and protects water quality. These upland areas should be considered vital
parts of natural floodplain functions.
2-Year Objectives
• Incorporate floodplain
connectivity and aquatic habitat
improvements in majority of
flood risk reduction projects in
the county.
5-Year Objectives
• Double the amount of
spending on floodplain
restoration and protection by
leveraging local funding to
obtain state and federal grants.
Long-Term Objectives
• Every floodplain
project achieves
multiple benefits such
as endangered species
habitat, salmon
rearing habitat, water
quality improvements,
climate resilience,
agricultural resilience,
and flood risk
reduction.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
249
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Proactively acquire floodprone properties to utilize for future restoration projects.
2. Complete restoration projects that reconnect rivers to their floodplains, remove bank armoring,
create side channels, reconnect oxbows, and encourage natural features such as beaver dams and
large wood in channels for increased flood storage and fish habitat. These projects will create
places for flood storage, which will reduce downstream flood heights and provide habitat for
endangered species.
3. Restore coastal shorelines by removing bulkheads wherever possible, creating pocket estuary
habitats, and allowing erosion to nourish beaches. Softening shorelines and creating estuaries will
result in reduced wave energy and fewer negative coastal flooding impacts.
4. Incorporate beaver habitat in restoration projects to provide flood storage and keep instream
water cooler.
5. Continue enforcing regulations that stop negative impacts on habitat and encourage net ecological
benefit. Shoreline management, critical area, and floodplain management regulations that adhere
to FEMA’s Biological Opinion are among the regulations that seek to improve natural floodplain
functions.
Performance Measure
• Acres of floodplain reconnected and/or restored.
• Large wood per mile in large rivers.
• Linear feet of bulkhead removed; and coastal shoreline restored
• Demonstrated losses avoided by increasing flood storage
• Chinook, coho, and steelhead population numbers, including annual adult spawner returns and
juvenile outmigrants.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
250
Flood Risk Mapping
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water &
Land Resources
Division; DLS
Permitting
Division
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region X,
Washington Department of
Ecology, US Army Corps
of Engineers
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood, Dam Failure
Goal 3, 5, 6, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Cooperating
Technical Partners
Program; King County
Flood Control District
Vision
Having updated flood risk data helps government agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders
make better risk-informed decisions. High quality flood data also more accurately ties regulations to
reducing flood risk.
Mitigation Strategy
While updating flood risk maps is an ongoing activity to take into account landscape and hydrology
changes, there are many flood hazards that need robust data and maps:
1. Floodplain maps – update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps used for regulatory and mitigation
planning purposes, including updating the South Fork Skykomish River and various streams that
only have approximate Zone A flood zones with no base flood elevation information.
Additionally, King County should work with incorporated urban communities to better study,
understand, and map urban flood risk.
2. Climate-influenced flood risk maps – King County and the University of Washington have been
collaborating on downscaling global climate models to generate river-basin scale hydrology data
based on the effects of climate change scenarios. King County can also evaluate other climate-
influenced changes in hydrology such as low summer flows, less snowpack, and other effects to
incorporate into maps showing climate-influenced flood risk. These data will be used to generate
maps of predicted changes in flood risk that can be used for planning and regulatory purposes.
3. Sea level rise flood risk maps – as part of the coastal flood hazard study, maps were produced
showing the effect on base flood elevation of a 2-foot rise in sea level around Vashon-Maury
Island. This study shows the broader effects of sea level rise on flood risk. These maps should be
updated with different sea level rise scenarios and also the resulting increased flood risk landward
of the edge of the 1% annual chance mapped floodplain should be considered.
4. Channel migration zone maps – currently 8 river sections have been mapped on the South Fork
Skykomish, Tolt, Cedar, South Fork Snoqualmie, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, North Fork
Snoqualmie, Green, and Raging Rivers. In addition to continually updating these maps, new river
sections need to be studied and mapped, including the Lower Snoqualmie. Channel migration
zone maps will help property owners best understand the risk from channel avulsion and help
keep more development safe.
5. Dam failure maps – every owner of a high hazard dam with the potential in a dam failure for loss
of life or structures must develop a dam inundation map as part of the Emergency Action Plan.
However, many of these inundation maps are out of date and are not accessible to the public.
Levee failure maps – King County will, where possible, study levee failure impacts and produce maps
that show areas of levee failure risk. The data and maps should be made available to the public so
people who live and work behind levees have an understanding of their flood risk.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete detailed flood study
on streams with approximate
Zone A floodplains.
• Complete levee breach analysis.
5-Year Objectives
• Identify a timeline for updated
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
with FEMA Region 10.
Long-Term Objectives
• Flood Insurance Rate
Map and other
regulatory flood data
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
251
• Create plan for integrating
flood maps and downscaled
climate model data.
• Begin sea level rise scenario
mapping for coastal shorelines.
• Establish plan for using
climate-influenced flood risk
data for planning and
regulatory purposes.
will be updated on a
regular basis.
• Highest quality flood
risk data that
incorporates effects of
climate change.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Update Flood Insurance Rate Maps to utilize better flood risk data, including the South Fork
Skykomish River and streams with Zone A maps. Also identify a strategy and timeline for
updating other streams/rivers that need updated flood risk data.
2. Create climate-influenced flood risk maps that can be used for planning purposes.
3. Create sea level rise flood risk maps for various sea level rise scenarios to be used for planning and
regulatory purposes.
4. Continue updating channel migration zone maps.
5. Release dam failure maps where appropriate and provide technical assistance to high hazard dam
owners to complete updated inundation maps.
6. Complete levee failure maps and release them to the public where appropriate.
Performance Measures
• Stream miles and linear feet of shoreline with updated flood risk, channel migration, and climate-
influenced flood risk data.
• Properties covered by updated flood risk, channel migration, and climate-influenced flood risk
data.
• Number of dams with updated inundation maps that are publicly available.
• Linear feet of levees with failure analyses publicly available.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
252
Public Information Flood Activities
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River &
Floodplain
Management Section,
Office of Emergency
Management
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region 10;
Washington Department of
Ecology; Washington
Division of Emergency
Management; King County
Flood Control District
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 6
Funding Sources
and Estimated
Costs
Existing resources
Vision
Flooding is a complicated hazard to understand and a responsibility of floodplain management
agencies is to help people understand it well enough to prepare themselves. A more informed public
means property owners who make decisions based on flood risk and fewer unexpected losses during
flooding.
Description
Effective outreach efforts are a key piece of comprehensive floodplain management. Letters sent
annually, outreach events, project-specific meetings, and providing technical assistance are all
components of effective outreach. Repetition of messages and continued outreach activities are also
important to ensuring that messages are delivered. Engaging as many types of communication
mediums as possible will also ensure that outreach efforts are effective.
2-Year Objectives
• New initiatives are
implemented.
5-Year Objectives
• Documentation that more
floodprone residents are
engaged.
Long-Term Objectives
• An informed public
that is prepared for
the effects of major
flooding.
Implementation Plan/Actions
The following activities should be conducted on an annual basis as a way to make the public more
aware of flood hazards and risks:
1. Flood brochure – sent to every property owner in the floodplain.
2. Repetitive loss letter – sent to properties with known repeated losses.
3. Realtor, insurance agent, and other stakeholder outreach – workshops, meetings, or other
outreach to professionals who need flood risk information.
4. News media outreach – coordinated effort to share stories about flood risk with the news media.
5. Annual event – separate or coordinated event every year that focuses on flood risk .
The following activities are not annual occurrences, but should be maintained to help facilitate the
availability of flood risk information:
1. Videos demonstrating flood risk, flood preparedness, and property protection measures that can
be taken.
2. Technical assistance to property owners on reducing flood risk on their property, including home
elevation support and small actions to reduce localized flood risk.
3. Maintaining a robust website, including an interactive map, with flood preparedness, mitigation,
regulation, and other flood risk information. The website will be updated at least annually and the
interactive map will incorporate new data when available.
• Floodplain management permitting bulletins will be created to help permit applicants understand
the regulations and their purpose.
Performance Measures
• Number of stakeholder groups reached
• CRS points for outreach and public information activities
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
253
Flood Insurance Promotion
Lead Points of
Contact
King County River
& Floodplain
Management
Section
Partner Points of Contact
Floodprone cities; FEMA
Region 10, insurance
agents, landlords, realtors,
mortgage lenders
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing sources
Strategy Vision/Objective
Flood insurance is the most important financial protection tool for a family against flood damage.
Promoting flood insurance is important to help property owners and renters be prepared for flooding
and reduce their financial risk.
Mitigation Strategy
Since homeowners and renter’s insurance policies do not cover flood damage, helping people
understand that flood insurance is the best financial protection tool is an important strategy.
Homeowners with a federally-backed mortgage are required to have flood insurance, so those who are
required most likely have a policy. Renters and those who own their houses free and clear are far less
likely to actively purchase a flood insurance policy. If their homes and apartments are flooded, they
may have to drain savings to pay for the damage.
Of all of the families that live in floodplains in King County, over 50% are renters, 14% own their
house without a mortgage, and 35% own with a mortgage. Families living in floodplains are much
more likely to be renters than those outside of the floodplain (only 40% of families outside of
floodplains rent). Additionally, people of color living in the floodplain are even more likely to rent.
Census data shows that 83% of African American families and 90% of Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander families living in the floodplain are renters.
So, promoting flood insurance should be primarily targeted toward renters and those who own their
house outright. The strategy should also strive to incorporate concepts of equity and social justice in
the approach and content of outreach.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed via
stakeholder committee.
• Technical assistance contact
identified.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed
via stakeholder committee.
• Technical assistance
contact identified.
2-Year Objectives
• Outreach plan developed
via stakeholder
committee.
• Technical assistance
contact identified.
Implementation Plan/Actions
1. Identify and convene stakeholder committee to help assess problem and create strategy for
promoting flood insurance.
2. Develop and implement outreach plan that targets renters/tenants and those who own their home
with no mortgage.
3. Identify a flood insurance technical assistance contact for King County residents and businesses to
be able to ask questions.
Performance Measures
• Number of flood insurance policies in force and percentage of covered buildings.
• CRS points for Activity 370.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
254
Enforce Higher Floodplain Management Regulations
Lead Points of
Contact
DLS Permitting
Division; DNRP
Water & Land
Resources
Division
Partner Points of Contact
FEMA Region X,
Washington Department of
Ecology
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood
Goal 5, 12, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Minimal, on-going
• Permit fees
• Existing resources
Vision
Higher floodplain management regulations play an important role in ensuring future development in
floodplains is as safe from flood risk as possible. For example, requiring that new buildings have their
lowest floor elevated 3 feet above the 1% annual chance flood elevation means fewer flood losses and
safer buildings.
While instituting a regulation prohibiting development in floodprone areas would ultimately reduce
future flood risk potential, the flood portion stakeholder committee decided not to include a
development prohibition mitigation action due to likely political and community opposition.
Description
The King County Comprehensive Plan sets out a policy that regulations should follow the concept of
“no adverse impact,” such that any particular development must not cause any effect to worsen
flooding on another property owner. The key higher standards that do this include a requirement that
all development in the entire floodplain meet a zero-rise requirement and a compensatory storage
requirement for fill and other materials. This approach reduces any potential flood risk from new
development. King County also has higher regulations that protect new or substantially improved
buildings, including a requirement that the lowest floor be elevated to 3 feet above the 1% annual
chance flood elevation.
2-Year Objectives
• Demonstrate that King
County is enforcing its
higher standards by
showing full compliance
with the FEMA floodplain
management audit.
• Establish stakeholder
committee to review potential
higher standards to include in
King County Code.
5-Year Objectives
• Submit to King County
Council flood code
amendments that include
other higher standards.
Long-Term Objectives
• Ensuring all potential
development in
floodplains meet
flood-safe standards.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• King County agencies will continue to fully enforce the higher regulations currently in King
County Code.
• King County will consider the following higher standards in future updates of the King County
Code and will establish a stakeholder committee to evaluate the following:
o Prohibiting hazardous materials storage in the regulated flood hazard area to lessen
potential health impacts from flooding.
o Requiring non-conversion agreement for structures built on crawlspaces or full-story
enclosures to ensure fewer structures converted to unsafe and noncompliant conditions.
o Requiring building restriction agreements for properties that are removed from the
floodplain via a Letter of Map Amendment to ensure freeboard standards are extended to
properties surrounded by or close to the edge of the mapped floodplain.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
255
o Establishing a cumulative or lower substantial improvement requirement to encourage
more homes to be elevated.
o Extending 1% annual chance flood requirements to the edges of the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain to account for higher flooding events and the potential for increasing flood
risks due to climate change.
o Adopting standards to regulate development in areas likely to face increasing flood risks
due to sea level rise to protect against future flood risk.
o Establishing coastal high hazard area regulations that require permit applicants to
demonstrate that their proposed action will not cause adverse impacts on other property
owners, including the potential for wave energy reflection on to neighboring shoreline
properties.
• The Floodplain Management Plan update will consider higher regulatory standards.
• Adopt the latest version of the International Building Codes.
Performance Measure
• Fewer and less extensive flood damage during a major flooding event.
• More points in the FEMA Community Rating System category for higher regulatory standards.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
256
Manage Flood Protection Facilities
Lead Points of
Contact
DNRP Water and
Land Resources
Division; King County
Flood Control District
Partner Points of
Contact
US Army Corps of
Engineers, local
governments, levee and
dam owners
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Flood, Earthquake
Goal 5, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
King County Flood
Control District;
Floodplains by Design
Strategy Vision/Objective
Flood protection facilities should be managed in a way that foremostly considers residual flood risk.
Alternative management practices should also incorporate improving natural floodplain functions.
Mitigation Strategy
Flood protection facilities include levees and revetments that provide some degree of flood and
erosion protection depending on their design and maintenance. All flood protection facilities leave
residual risk behind them and above their protection level. In certain areas of King County, flood
protection facilities have reduced flood damage, but they have also facilitated growth in homes,
warehouses, and businesses built behind them. The expanded neighborhoods and business activities
are then more at risk of a 0.2% annual chance flood event or flooding from a levee failure, and if
climate change increases the severity of flooding events, then the flood risk will grow. Thus, it is
important for existing flood protection facilities to be managed well to protect property owners, but
also for King County to where possible reduce areas that need to be protected with expensive flood
protection facilities.
2-Year Objectives
• Updated Floodplain
Management Plan that
reflects these
priorities.
5-Year Objectives
• Flood protection facilities are managed
in way that considers multiple benefits.
• Fewer people face residual flood risk
from being behind a flood protection
facility.
Long-Term Objectives
• Flood protection
facilities are minimally
needed for
communities to be
resilient.
Implementation Plan/Actions
The following are strategies supported by the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan that
should continue:
1. Where possible, King County should remove flood protection facilities and allow rivers to
reconnect to their floodplains.
2. If flood protection facilities cannot be removed, King County should consider setting the
facilities back to allow floodplain storage.
3. Utilize bioengineering in repairs, enhancements, or temporary measures. Bioengineering
incorporates live plants and large wood in an effort to reduce flood velocities while protecting
aspects of flood protection facilities.
4. Create criteria for when these flood protection facility alternatives would be utilized.
5. Create criteria based on King County Code and the Flood Hazard Management Plan for the
conditions to construct a new flood protection facility or a new dam.
6. Ensure levees and dams are designed for earthquakes and are inspected immediately one.
Flood protection facilities should also be continually managed considering seismic risks.
Performance Measures
• Number of properties and buildings in the levee-protected areas.
• Linear feet of flood protection facilities set back or removed.
• Flood protection facilities damaged by earthquakes.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
257
Seismic Evaluation of King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center
Lead
Aaron Bert,
Deputy Director
Jim Burt, Capital
Projects Section
Manager
Partners
N/A
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Goal 6
Goal 9
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA PDM, KC Capital
Budget, $200,000
Vision
Seismic evaluation of the King County Courthouse and Maleng Regional Justice Center, per the
current standards of FEMA-178 and ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings. An updated assessment of building risks is needed for further seismic hazard mitigation
planning and seismic retrofit, to protect and mitigate against potential loss of life, loss of asset, and
loss of essential function capabilities during and immediately after an earthquake event.
Description
King County last completed a seismic hazard assessment of its essential facilities in 1993, based on
building codes and seismic hazard protection data available at that time. Since then, earthquakes have
produced unexpected and major infrastructure damage and loss of life from relatively small seismic
events and have contributed to new data supporting major revisions to seismic mitigation strategies
and building codes.
An ASCE 41-13 seismic evaluation is the first step toward earthquake hazard mitigation. Evaluation
findings will be used to plan, design, fund and construct needed seismic retrofit projects.
2-Year Objectives
• Seismic evaluations, per the
current standards of FEMA-
178 and ASCE 41-13, Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings.
5-Year Objectives
• Identify funding for planning,
design and construction of all
needed seismic retrofit
measures.
Long-Term Objectives
• Seismic retrofit to
meet or exceed
current standards of
protection.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Pre-Application submitted to Washington Emergency Management Division for a 2020 FEMA
Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant for Advance Assistance.
• Draft and release RFP for complete building seismic evaluation.
• Based on evaluation findings and available funding, plan and budget building retrofit work and/or
apply for future FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure & Communities to fund seismic retrofit.
Performance Measure
• Achievement of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Advance Assistance grant, or feedback from WA EMD
on strength of application, achievement of assessment in 2 years, achievement of retrofit project
funding in 5 years.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
258
Integrate ESJ into Mitigation, Response, and Recovery Activities
Lead
Preparedness
Senior Manager
Partners
Office of Equity and Social
Justice, Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Goal 2, 6, 10, 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Funding
Vision
King County Emergency Management considers impacts and benefits to populations more likely to
suffer damage or long recovery times during disaster mitigation, response, and recovery activities.
Description
Vulnerable populations, defined here as those more likely to suffer losses during disasters and recover
more slowly afterward, should be a primary focus of an emergency management program. This is fully
consistent with our charge of identifying and addressing the greatest sources of vulnerability. As part
of this strategy, King County Emergency Management will identify vulnerable areas and develop
action plans to ensure that populations more likely to suffer damage are prioritized in accordance with
need. This includes prioritized mitigation projects to reduce risks, identification and prioritization of
resources during response, and additional support and assistance to increase resilience and reduce
recovery times after a disaster.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop a geospatial
tool to ensure that
resources are distributed
equitably and according
to need.
5-Year Objectives
• Implement prioritized
mitigation strategies
benefitting populations
more vulnerable to hazards.
Long-Term Objectives
• Emergency management
activities are prioritized
according to a comprehensive
understanding of vulnerability
and need.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Expand identification sources of population vulnerability and likely impacts to vulnerable
populations from different hazards.
• Use identified priority languages to expand outreach and notification capabilities.
• Compile a database of infrastructure vulnerability/inequity for use in mitigation, response, and
recovery planning activities by working with KC GIS.
• Increase outreach in priority areas with vulnerable populations by engaging with community
partners through the preparedness program. Potentially mimic Seattle’s Ambassadors program.
• Include insurance information in preparedness outreach.
• Build a geospatial tool to track impacts and resource delivery during disaster response activities
and develop ESJ objectives for EOC operations.
• Develop SOPs for use during activations that ensure staff consider population vulnerability with
or without requests from communities. Consider creating an ESJ-specific position or ESJ-specific
position responsibilities for work within the EOC.
• Work with county agency partners to prioritize projects that reduce risk in areas with vulnerable
populations (as defined in this plan), including through planning efforts such as subarea plans.
• Develop an infrastructure equity map.
• Develop a hazard vulnerability component map to use in comprehensive planning.
• Crosswalk climate risk and population vulnerability with SCAP actions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
259
Performance Measure
• # mitigation projects specifically benefitting vulnerable communities/populations
• KCEM did/did not identify potential needs in vulnerable communities, regardless of resource
requests received from those communities.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
260
Seismic Lifeline Route Resilience
Lead
KC EM
Partners
DLS
PHSKC
FMD
DNRP
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake /
Goal 4
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Capital Budget
FEMA HMA
General Fund
Vision
King County is able to conduct life-safety response and recovery operations throughout the county
following a catastrophic Cascadia Subduction Zone or Seattle Fault earthquake.
Description
Following a major earthquake, at least three-quarters of all state-managed bridges will be inoperable
for at least one-three months. This threatens the ability of responders to conduct life safety
operations, for life saving resources to be distributed, and for communities to begin to transition to
recovery. This strategy will build on state and federal assessments of transportation vulnerability to
identify regional lifeline routes for King County and prioritize vulnerable segments for mitigation
investments.
2-Year Objectives
• Convene a multiagency
committee to develop a strategy
• Identify potential lifeline routes
and route vulnerabilities.
5-Year Objectives
• Develop a prioritized list of
lifeline routes and submit to
the Executive and Council
Long-Term Objectives
• Develop, maintain,
and expand the
resilient transportation
lifeline.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• KC EM will work with WSDOT, DLS, and others to review the completed RRAP for critical
transportation and to identify potential seismic lifeline routes. Work with UW to verify RRAP
results.
• Based on identified lifeline routes, identify necessary mitigation to protect and expand those
routes.
• Prioritize investments based in part on population vulnerability and likelihood of self-sustaining
for a longer period of time.
• Continue this effort through the strategy identified by King County Roads to retrofit seismically-
vulnerable bridges.
Performance Measure
• Lifeline routes are identified
• # projects completed to strengthen the seismic lifeline routes
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
261
Integrate Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Planning
Lead
KC EM
Partners
Office of the Executive
DLS
PSRC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 12
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Comprehensive planning and regional initiatives like Vision 2050 account for hazard risk and the role
that development patterns and climate change play in increasing hazard risk. These plans adopt
policies and land use patterns designed to limit hazard risk.
Description
The most cost-effective mitigation measures are those that prevent the creation of risk through codes
and development standards. At present, hazards are barely mentioned in most countywide/region
wide planning documents. This strategy seeks to increase the integration between mitigation, response,
and recovery concerns and major land-use policies and plans, including the Growth Management Act,
PSRC Visions, and the Comprehensive Plan.
2-Year Objectives
• Provide comments on Vision
2050 updates.
• Provide feedback on 2020
Comp Plan policies
5-Year Objectives
• Fully participate in the next
major update of the
comprehensive plan, ensuring
hazard risk and risk reduction
is represented throughout.
Long-Term Objectives
• Integrate hazards into
desired planning and
development
outcomes.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work with planning agencies to identify a list of areas where hazard information would be helpful
in designing good policies.
• Socialize the concept of integrating hazard mitigation and comprehensive planning by attending
regional meetings around the GMA and Comprehensive Plan as well as of City Manager and
Planning Director groups.
• Look into developing a land-use tool platform similar to Colorado’s planningforhazards.com page
and that identifies tools that can be used to reduce hazard risk, such as purchase of development
rights.
• Add hazard mitigation policies and strategies to the King County countywide planning policies to
be updated in 2020.
• Integrate concepts of social vulnerability into comprehensive planning efforts in order to promote
the use of comprehensive planning to both reduce hazard risk and build equity.
• Participate in WA Commerce and FEMA-led activities on how to consider hazards in
comprehensive planning.
Performance Measure
• # of countywide planning policies addressing natural and manmade hazards.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
262
Engage Community Organizations in Emergency Management
Lead
KC EM
Partners
Public Health SKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 12
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Increase the participation of communities to identify local preparedness priorities and opportunities to
do hazard mitigation, risk prevention, and community preparedness activities through the creation of
“community resiliency networks” using a model similar to the Public Health community health
networks. Use feedback from these community groups to influence response planning and
prioritization, including for catastrophic response and recovery planning.
Description
Emergency planning typically underutilizes existing community capabilities and undervalues the
resilience built into many communities, especially those that are marginally represented or of lower-
income. Examples from around the country point out that a partnership with individuals and
organizations from these communities a can result in better emergency management, reduced risk, aid
in more rapid recovery, and even improve day-to-day quality of life indicators. King County
Emergency Management will partner with other agencies to work more closely with communities to
identify opportunities to strengthen the 14 Determinants of Equity through mitigation, establish
response needs, recovery priorities, and account for community capabilities that can be valuable
during disasters.
2-Year Objectives
• Bring together agencies to identify
potential community partners for
emergency management.
• Complete a community capability map.
• Complete an infrastructure equity map.
5-Year Objectives
• Establish community
priorities for each
mission area and
ensure those priorities
are executed through
plans and actions.
Long-Term Objectives
• Sustain a community
equity in emergency
management coalition.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Develop tools to identify areas of inequity in emergency management, including for outreach,
language support, and the quality of public infrastructure and services that may be damaged during
a disaster.
• Investigate developing a community equity committee for emergency management similar to
those used by King County Parks and Metro.
• Work with Public Health SKC and other agency partners to expand the Trusted Partners Network
identify potential community organization partners with whom KC EM could engage to learn
more about capabilities and gaps.
• Record community-identified mitigation and preparedness priorities and invest in them.
Performance Measure
• King County Emergency Management has prioritized/carried out # of community-identified
actions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
263
Climate Integration Training
Lead
KC EM
Partners
DNRP
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Staff Time
Vision
All jurisdictions consider climate and climate-induced hazard impacts in their planning.
Description
The King County Hazard Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a framework for local and
regional action to reduce the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards in King County. Many of
the natural hazards covered in the Plan, including flooding, wildfire, and landslides, are exacerbated by
climate change. Building from work initiated in the 2019-20 Plan update, the Office of Emergency
Management will host trainings with partner jurisdictions on incorporating climate change into hazard
mitigation. The trainings will include information on how climate change affects natural hazards in
King County; how to evaluate and adjust hazard mitigation strategies to account for climate impacts,
including the potential for disproportionate impacts on frontline communities; and best practices for
sharing information about climate risks with the public.
2-Year Objectives
• Develop training
plan/curriculum
• Conduct training
5-Year Objectives
• Host periodic trainings and
integrate climate
considerations into classes or
seminars on wildfires, severe
weather, and planning.
Long-Term Objectives
• N/A
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Work with SCAP team to develop climate planning training curriculum.
• Identify and schedule opportunities to host climate trainings for King County and constituent
jurisdictions.
• Host trainings during mitigation plan update meetings, winter weather seminars, wildfire seminars,
and other related opportunities that bring local and county staff together to discuss hazards that
are impacted by climate change.
Performance Measure
• # trainings hosted
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
264
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training
Lead
KCEM Public
Outreach
Program Manager
Partners
Community Outreach
Workgroup
Zone Coordinators
King County Libraries
PHSKC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All Hazards
Goal 6
Goal 14
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
EMPG, UASI, SHSP
Vision
King County Emergency Management delivers the county’s disaster education, and provides year-
round free training and education to county employees, residents, and organizations/businesses via
several programs and activities aimed at promoting personal and community risk reduction.
Description
Disaster Skills Risk Reduction Training will provide education on natural and man-made hazards that
are present and could occur in King County and ways to mitigate and reduce impacts in addition to
increase community disaster preparedness, self-sufficiency, and protection of property.
2-Year Objectives
• Complete one Basic Disaster
Skills Trainings (General
Preparedness/Risk Reduction)
within each
jurisdictions/unincorporated
area in King County.
• Train at least 1,500 residents
through Basic Disaster Skills
Trainings and MYN Facilitator
Trainings.
5-Year Objectives
• Complete Advanced Disaster
Skills Trainings (Fire Safety &
Bleeding Control) within each
jurisdictions/unincorporated
area in King County.
• Train at least 2,500 residents
in advanced skills such as fire
extinguisher and bleeding
control
• Train at least 50 individuals to
serve as instructors for their
respective organization,
community, department, or
jurisdiction.
Long-Term Objectives
• Maintain consistent
outreach to high-risk
communities.
• Maintain consistent
advanced disaster
skills risk reduction
trainings.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Hold two trainings a month at the King County Libraries or with local jurisdictions
• Connect with the Seattle King County Public Health Ethnic-centric boards and ESJ newsletter for
trusted partners to support sharing events and training opportunities.
• Hold four quarterly workshops for public educators to provide continuing education for
community engagement specialists and public education and outreach coordinators.
• Modify outreach efforts to mirror need so that 80% of outreach goes to the 20% of the
population at highest risk.
• Look into partnering with public health to teach post-disaster environmental health risk reduction
skills, including emergency drinking water, toxin exposure reduction, etc.
Performance Measure
• Using sign-in sheets, keep track of how many individuals are attending Basic and Advanced
trainings
• Social Media hits
• Ethnic social media connections
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
265
Dam Failure Risk and Impact Reduction
Lead
KC EM Dam
Safety Program
Coordinator
Partners
DNRP, WLRD
DNRP, Rivers
WA Depot of Ecology,
Dam Safety Office
WRIA 8
WRIA 7
Salmon Recovery Funding
Board
Tribes
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Dam Failure /
Goal 5
Goal 6
Goal 12
Goal 14
Supplemental Goal 15
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA Rehabilitation of
High Hazard Potential
Dam Grant Program
King County Flood
Control District
FMA
PDM
Various Salmon &
Environment Recovery
Grants
Vision
Lower the risk and impacts of dam failure in King County.
Description
Washington State Dam Safety Office will identify high and significant hazard dams that are in poor
condition. King County will gather information from other sources about low hazard dams of interest.
King County will assist in seeking alternative funding structures to lower the risk of failure.
Additionally, King County will seek alternative funding structures to decommission identified dams
that threaten environmental resources. Lastly, resources will be sought to strengthen the integrity and
security of high and significant hazard dams in the County that are not feasible to remove.
2-Year Objectives
Identify dams in King County that
are assessed to be in poor condition
by the Washington State DSO and
identify funding structures to
mitigate their risk. Begin dam
removal projects.
5-Year Objectives
Eliminate the risk associated with
all dams in the County assessed to
be in poor condition by the
Washington State DSO.
Long-Term Objectives
Decommission dams that
have outlived their
functional use, but still
remain operational and
pose a threat to the
County.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Washington State DSO will identify poor condition dams in the County and rely them to KCEM.
• KCEM will work with DNRP, local jurisdictions, and tribes to identify potential
funding/mitigation strategies.
• Ensure vulnerable populations are accounted for in outreach and risk assessments.
• Where applicable, KCEM will assist in grant application development and administration.
Performance Measure
• Number of mitigation actions for high hazard and significant dams that are in poor condition
dams.
• Number of dams removed.
• Number of dams with lowered hazard classification through mitigation actions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
266
Wildfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction
Lead
KC EM,
Hazard Mitigation
Partners
DNRP, WLRD, DNRP,
Parks, DLS, Permitting
KC Fire Districts, WA
DNR, King Conservation
District, Tribes, USFS, KC
Climate Preparedness
Public Health Seattle-KC
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Wildfire /
Goal 3
Goal 5
Goal 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
Existing Resources
Vision
As King County grows, and awareness of climate change-driven wildfire risk grows, King County has
a coordinated strategy to support individuals and local jurisdictions in identifying and managing
wildfire risk, including risk to property and public health.
Description
Partner with King County communities, fire districts, and other organizations to develop an integrated
King County strategy for wildfire. The strategy will review current efforts to address wildfire risk in
King County and develop recommendations for addressing identified gaps and opportunities. These
recommendations will be carried out through a coordinated Firewise technical assistance program,
likely led by DNRP. This effort will be coordinated with a SCAP action seeking a similar outcome.
This strategy will be based in part on the results of WA DNR effort to map the Wildland Urban
Interface in King County.
2-Year Objectives
• Convene a multiagency
committee to develop a strategy
• Request funding for outreach
5-Year Objectives
• Implement the strategy
through coordinated technical
assistance between the county
and local communities
Long-Term Objectives
• Maintain consistent
outreach to
potentially-impacted
communities.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• KC EM will work with DNRP, WLRD and the Climate Preparedness team to identify partners.
• Continue to partner with WA DNR and DLS to map WUI areas – ultimately use this map to
target strategy priorities.
• Socialize results of WUI mapping efforts with comprehensive plan staff and look into planning
policies that could limit density or development in fire-prone areas.
• Convene multiagency committee once WA DNR WUI maps are closer to being finalized
• Identify existing preparedness actions and gaps, including areas that are/are not receiving Firewise
outreach and support.
• Develop wildfire preparedness and mitigation coordination strategy and socialize it.
• DNRP to request $150k funding for an additional FTE to support Firewise efforts.
• Look into model codes, ordinances, or other strategies to promote in addition to Firewise.
• Host an annual tabletop at the wildfire workshop held each year by KCEM.
Performance Measure
• KC EM was successful/not successful in convening all the necessary partners to establish a
unified strategy for community wildfire preparedness and risk reduction.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
267
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Support
Lead
KC EM
Partners
WA EMD
Local Jurisdictions
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All /
Goal 10
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA HMA Grants
Vision
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants go to the communities and projects most needed and more
effective at reducing risk, regardless of a community’s internal capacity to administer federal grants.
Description
With the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) in 2018, the amount of federal grant
funding for hazard mitigation will top $300-700 million annually, at least a 3-fold increase over historical
averages. For 2019, grants of up to $4 million, federal cost-share, will be available. The experience-
barrier to seeking these grants has prevented jurisdictions and county departments from applying. King
County Emergency Management is establishing a grant assistance program to lower these barriers by
providing support in administering FEMA grants.
To pay for this service, King County will leverage local management costs, provided to grant
recipients.
2-Year Objectives
• Publish assistance guidelines
and implement at least one test
case.
5-Year Objectives
• Expand local capacity to
administer grants.
• Expand KC EM capacity to
support on application
development
Long-Term Objectives
• Communities that
need grants
consistently are able to
seek them, regardless
of internal capacity.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Administer FEMA grants - King County will administer grants, to include submitting
reimbursements and documentation, completing quarterly reports, and managing grant kickoff
and closeout.
• Provide application technical assistance - King County will, as time allows, provide support and
technical assistance in developing applications. Jurisdictions will take the lead in application
development. King County may provide more support in the future.
• Establish a process to collect documentation and reimburse expenditures - King County will
establish a process to identify and track expenditures, and collect documentation necessary for
submission to FEMA and the State. King County will work with partners to ensure this process is
clear and straightforward.
• Develop an interlocal agreement process - King County will develop and establish an internal sub-
award agreement process that lays out expectations for both parties in successfully administering
the grants and completing mitigation projects.
• Look into other fund sources post-disaster and accelerate projects like flooded home buyouts
before rebuilding occurs.
Performance Measure
• # Grants administered on behalf of other agencies/communities.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
268
Public Assistance Grant Support
Lead
KCEM Business
& Finance
Officer
Partners
King County Public
Assistance Team
membership
Hazards Mitigated
/ Goals Addressed
All
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
FEMA 406 Mitigation
Vision
Post-Disaster Recovery following a Presidentially Declared Disaster will include taking full advantage
of the utilization of 406 Hazard Mitigation funding made available exclusively to eligible agencies
within a qualifying jurisdiction.
Description
The federal Public Assistance (PA) Disaster Recovery Grant Program supports governmental and
government-type agencies recovery from major disaster declared by the President. While billions of
PA grants are provided and provide significant support to recovering agencies; mitigating future
occurrences of similar nature supports and strengthens resiliency on a long-term basis. The
recognition of this is carried out through the provision of 406 Hazard Mitigation funds which are only
available to agencies to mitigate damages suffered from a Presidentially Declared Disaster. These
funds are added to Project Worksheets for PA Grant funds. King County Emergency Management
serves as the County’s Applicant Agent for PA and oversees the disaster financial recovery efforts for
King County government agencies. This strategy seeks to increase the number of 406 Hazard
Mitigation projects added to Public Worksheets to increase King County government resilience in all
county agencies.
2-Year Objectives
• Provide the KC PA Team
(KCPAT) education and
outreach on the 406 Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.
• 50% of all impacted eligible
KC government agencies
will identify at least one
mitigation project for each
PA PWs to mitigate/
prevent/eliminate future
damage directly attributable
to the declared disaster.
5-Year Objectives
• 75% of all impacted eligible
KC government agencies will
identify at least one
mitigation project for each
PA Project Worksheet to
mitigate/prevent/eliminate
future damage directly
attributable to the declared
disaster.
Long-Term Objectives
• 95% of all impacted
eligible KC government
agencies will identify at
least one mitigation project
for each PA Project
Worksheet to
mitigate/prevent/eliminate
the damage directly
attributable to the declared
disaster.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Prepare training materials on 406 Hazard Mitigation Program
• Conduct trainings for the King County Public Assistance Team
• DNRP will train operations and engineering staff in the assessment of earthquake damaged
facilities. A WTD specific ATC- 20 class will be conducted in early 2020 for operations and
engineering staff. Response guides and ATC-20 placards for post-earthquake inspection and
FEMA cost tracking forms are being placed in all offsite facilities.
• Develop a KCPAT Disaster Recovery Financial Management Plan
• Develop KCPAT Disaster Recovery Profiles
• Represent and support each KCPAT agency during post-disaster recovery process
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
269
• Work with each impacted agency during a declared disaster to identify eligible 406 HM project(s)
Performance Measure
• # of KCPAT members receiving training/outreach
• # of 406 Hazard Mitigation Projects funded
• % of Impacted King County government agencies receiving a 406 Hazard Mitigation Project
• Identify local cost-share opportunities, including the flood control district.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
270
Language Accessible Video Emergency Messaging
Lead
Risk Communications
Specialist
Public Health Seattle & King
County, Office of the Director
Partners
King County
OEM
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
All-Hazards
Goal 6
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$100,000 +
Vision
Increase the inventory of pre-scripted and translated language accessible materials for public health
emergencies to aid in the rapid dissemination of public information and warning for all-hazards. Using
audio-video media, increase the reach of emergency messaging for individuals with English as a
second-language and persons who use American Sign Language (ASL).
Description
28.5% of King County citizens are speakers of a non-English language and in some local language
communities, there is also a low rate of literacy in the spoken language. This mitigation strategy aims
to develop language accessible materials in an audio-video format to assist in public information and
warning for known hazards within King County. By providing emergency messaging in an audio-video
format, King County will be able to provide equitable access to culturally appropriate emergency
messaging for individuals who do not read (in English or in their spoken language) and individuals
with language access needs (including individuals who speak American Sign Language). This
mitigation strategy will aid in the rapid dissemination via web and social media of critical life-
safety/risk reduction emergency messaging to all persons present in King County in the event of an
emergency.
2-Year Objectives
• Secure videographer
• Secure and train ASL
interpreter service and
spokespeople from language
communities
• Develop language accessible
emergency messaging using
audio-video format
• Conduct trial runs for language
accessible emergency messaging
5-Year Objectives
• Implement language
accessible emergency
messaging for public use
• Conduct public awareness
campaign to socialize language
accessible emergency
messaging
Long-Term Objectives
• Reduce delays in
issuing language
accessible/translated
emergency messaging
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Identify, script, and translate/transcreate emergency messaging for key hazards
• Issue request for proposals for content videographer and interpreter services (including American
Sign Language)
• Film and produce language accessible emergency messaging content
• Engage communities in review and testing of language accessible emergency messaging
• Implement language accessible emergency messaging for public use and dissemination
• Conduct public awareness campaign to socialize language accessible emergency messaging
• Develop a social media strategy to support the accessible video tools.
Performance Measure
• Time for issuance/public broadcasting of language accessible emergency messaging during
emergency activation(s)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
271
King County Facilities Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Network
Lead
Environmental Health
Emergency Response Planner
Public Health – Seattle &
King County
Partners
King County
Facilities
Maintenance
Division
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Wildfire Smoke
Goal 2, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
$100,000
Vision
Develop and implement network of indoor air quality monitoring devices in King County operated
facilities to ensure the health and safety of King County employees during periods of poor air quality
due to wildfire smoke inundation.
Description
Procure and deploy 280 Dylos DC1100 true laser particle counters (indoor air quality monitors) across
28 facilities owned and/or managed by King County to aid in continuity of operation decision making
during periods of poor air quality during wildfire smoke events. Indoor air quality network would
enable the county to make informed decisions regarding the health and safety of employees working
in county owned/managed facilities and base facility closure decisions along established state
recommended action thresholds for PM2.5 levels. The Dylos DC1100 systems are portable units that
run at an estimated cost of $260.99 per unit and have the capability of relaying recorded PM levels to a
central computer for active indoor air quality monitoring via integrated system telemetry.
2-Year Objectives
• Procurement of Dylos DC1100
indoor air quality monitors
• Deployment of Dylos DC 1100
indoor air quality monitors
across 28 king county
owned/managed facilities
• Establishment of centralized
computer telemetry system for
active monitoring of indoor air
quality network
• Increase situational awareness
regarding indoor air quality of
King County facilities during
wildfire smoke events
5-Year Objectives
• Assess indoor air quality
performance of King County
facilities during wildfire smoke
events
• Identify mitigation strategies
to further improve indoor air
quality of King County
facilities during wildfire smoke
events
• Improve the overall indoor air
quality performance of King
County facilities during
wildfire smoke events
Long-Term Objectives
• Increase situational
awareness regarding
indoor air quality of
King County facilities
during wildfire smoke
events
• Increase the overall air
quality performance
of King County
facilities during
wildfire smoke events
to aid in maintaining
continuity of
operations during
periods of poor air
quality
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
272
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Procurement of Dylos DC1100 indoor air quality monitors
• Deployment of Dylos DC1100 indoor air quality monitors across 28 King County Facilities
• Establish centralized computer telemetry system for active monitoring of indoor air quality
monitoring network
• Assess the performance of each King County facility during periods of poor air quality due to
wildfire smoke
• Determine if facility closures are warranted based upon state recommended air quality action
thresholds during periods of wildfire smoke inundation
• Identify subsequent indoor air quality mitigation recommendations for improving facility
performance during wildfire smoke events
Performance Measure
• Prioritization of facilities warranting further indoor air quality mitigation actions to improve
performance during periods of poor outdoor air quality
• Development of indoor air quality mitigation recommendations for prioritized facilities
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
273
Medical Gas Seismic Detection & Emergency Shut Off
Lead
PHSKC –
Environmental
Health Services
Division,
Community
Environmental
Health Section
Partners
Harborview Medical Center
Hazards Mitigated /
Goals Addressed
Earthquake
Goal 2, 12
Funding Sources and
Estimated Costs
≤$500,000
Vision
Reduce the disruption to level 1 trauma centers in King County following the event of a large
earthquake by retrofitting level 1 trauma centers with medical gas seismic detection and emergency
shut off systems.
Description
Harborview Medical Center is the only level 1 trauma center within King County and the State of
Washington. In the event of a large earthquake impacting the Puget Sound region, disruptions to
medical gas piping and delivery systems can significantly increase the recovery time to resume
operations. This strategy proposes retrofitting the medical gas piping and delivery systems with early
warning seismic detection and emergency shut off valves in order to increase the capability of rapid
restoration of medical services following the event of a large earthquake in order to expedite the
restoration of life saving operational capacity.
2-Year Objectives
• Fund feasibility study
• Select consultants to complete
study
5-Year Objectives
• Update medical gas piping
and plumbing code to require
seismic detection and
emergency shut off valves for
Level 1 trauma centers.
Long-Term Objectives
• Expedite the
restoration of critical
life-saving operational
capacity for trauma
centers with a level 1
designation.
Implementation Plan/Actions
• Allocate funding to conduct a feasibility study for seismic detection and emergency shut off valve
upgrades for level 1 trauma centers in King County
• Issue Request for Proposal to contract conduct of feasibility study
• Biased upon findings of feasibility study, update medical gas piping and plumbing code to require
seismic detection and emergency shut off valves for medical gases for level 1 trauma centers.
Performance Measure
• Completion of a feasibility study assessing cost-benefit outcome for seismic detection and
emergency shut off valve system upgrades
• Update medical gas piping and plumbing code to require seismic detection and emergency shut
off valves for level 1 trauma centers.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
4
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF RENTON PLAN ANNEX TO THE 2020-2025 KING
COUNTY REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 1
City of Renton Plan Annex
Introduction
Brief History
Originally an important fishing area for Native Americans, Renton
experienced a migration of 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 surrounding hills.
In 1911 a major flood provided the impetus for diverting the
channel of the Cedar River to prevent future flooding in the city.
The building of the Renton Boeing plant during World War II
brought thousands to Renton for jobs. Renton is also home to
several other major corporations and important regional
government facilities.
Climate
The climate of Renton is moderate, with mild winters, averaging
154 precipitation days per year, and warm, dry summers. Annual
temperatures range from 37 to 78 degrees, rarely going below 28
degrees or above 87 degrees. Annual rainfall is 38 inches. 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.
Development Trends
Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. Industrial and
commercial uses are located primarily in the Green River valley and
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, where most residential growth is still occurring.
In addition, there are pockets of mixed-use commercial centers aimed
at providing services for residents 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. This
infill has increased the number of residents living in the 500 year flood
plain of the Cedar River.
Renton’s language diversity continues to increase, which creates
additional challenges in communicating risk to the population.
City of Renton Profile
Date of Incorporation:
9/6/1901
Governance: Optional
municipal code city governed
by a Mayor/Council form of
government
Population as of 4/1/2019:
104,700
Area: 24 square miles
Location and Description:
Western Washington State,
Central Puget Sound, south
King County
Jurisdiction Point of Contact:
Name: Deborah Needham
Title: Emergency Management
Director
Entity: City of Renton
Phone: 425-430-7725
Email: dneedham@rentonwa.gov
Plan Prepared By:
Name: Deborah Needham
Title: Emergency Management
Director
Entity: City of Renton
Phone: 425-430-7725
Email: dneedham@rentonwa.gov
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 2
City of Renton Risk Summary
Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Summary
HAZARD RISK SUMMARY VULNERABILITY SUMMARY IMPACT SUMMARY
Avalanche n/a n/a n/a
Dam
Failure
There are two major
dams on the Green
River and Cedar River
respectively, and
numerous levees along
both rivers. A failure
of either a dam or a
levee would cause
severe flooding not
seen since the two
dams were built. A
dam failure with a full-
pool scenario will
likely be much more
severe than a typical
flooding scenario.
Renton is near or at the end of the
drainage basin for the Green River
and the Cedar River. As a relatively
low-lying area, it becomes the
collector for floodwaters along those
rivers. The Green River Valley is a
thriving commercial and industrial
area. The area around the Cedar
River is primarily developed as
residential. There are schools and
several senior residential
communities in the floodplain.
There is great potential for loss of
life for those not able to evacuate
ahead of the flood waters.
In the Green River Valley
hundreds of millions dollars of
real property would be
destroyed in in Renton,
primarily businesses, causing
them to permanently close
their doors, with a loss of
revenue for the city. A Chester
Morse Dam failure on the
Cedar River would destroy
hundreds of millions dollars of
mostly residential property,
leaving many homeless.
Earthquake The city is subject to a
major earthquake
generated by the
Seattle Fault to the
north, and the
Cascadia Subduction
Zone offshore to the
west, which is capable
of generating an
earthquake in the 8.0-
9.0 range. Additional
minor faults may
generate smaller
earthquakes, and faults
further away can still
cause damage.
Much of the historic downtown area
is comprised of unreinforced
masonry (URM) buildings that are
vulnerable to collapse and present a
life safety hazard. Most of Renton’s
commercial development, including
the historic downtown, is built on
soils with high liquefaction risk.
Many homes were built before
seismic code was changed
acknowledge the seismic risk of the
area, which will lead to extensive
damage of many structures.
The city was damaged in 1965
from the 6.7 Puget Sound
quake, with severe damage to
the Boeing plant. In 2001 the
city was again damaged by the
6.8 Nisqually quake, primarily
cracked masonry and
collapsed chimneys, but with
no deaths in Renton. More
structures and residents are at
risk today because of
multifamily infill development
in the liquefaction zone.
Flood Much of Renton’s
commercial and
institutional
development is
located within the
floodplain of either
the Green River or
Cedar River, and a
considerable amount
of residential
development within
the Cedar River
floodplain. 6.35% of
the total land area of
the city is within the
Renton is near or at the end of the
drainage basin for the Green River
and the Cedar River. As a relatively
low-lying area, it becomes the
collector for floodwaters along those
rivers. The Green River Valley is a
thriving commercial and industrial
area. The annual risk of a
catastrophic flood in that area is
1:140. The area around the Cedar
River is primarily developed as
residential. There are schools and
several senior residential
communities in the 100 year
floodplain, as well as the city’s
In the last two decades, the
city has experienced repeated
moderate flood events causing
nearly $22 million in damages
and response costs. As climate
change and development has
changed the floodplain, more
structures are thought to be at
risk to a similar event today.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3
Special Flood Hazard
Area. The city has
good floodplain
management
regulations and has
limited development;
however, there are
many structures
already present in the
floodplain.
largest employer. The historic
downtown area is located within the
500 year flood plain.
Landslide/
Sinkholes/
Ground
subsidence
Areas of steep slopes
and high erosion
hazard can be found
throughout the city.
As a former coal-
mining town, many
abandoned coal mines
criss-cross the
underground
landscape. There is a
high water table and
some of the city’s soil
types are known to be
prone to landslide or
subsidence.
Some landslide prone areas had
already been developed prior to
institution of stricter regulations.
The Maple Valley Highway has
experienced repetitive landslide
issues that have forced its closure at
times. Smaller landslides occur more
regularly in other areas of the city.
Sinkholes in roadways and pipeline
right-of-ways have occurred within
the past five years compromising
public safety.
Climate change predictions
include shifting rainfall
patterns to include greater
bursts in short periods,
increasing the landslide risk
over time. As soils continue to
settle, there will likely be an
increase in the frequency of
sinkhole formation and coal
mine collapse, which can be
related.
Severe
Weather
Tornados are rare in
this region, but the
city is prone to
damaging high winds
during seasonal
storms. Trees
frequently fall during
such storms. Some
neighborhoods are
built entirely within
large stands of tall
trees. Lightning
storms create
additional risk of fire.
High summer
temperatures cause
health problems for
those without air-
conditioning, and
drought is a potential
consequence.
The majority of power lines in
Renton are overhead rather than
underground. Wind damage often
results in power outages and road
closures due to falling trees. Due to
the usually mild summers, many
homes in Renton do not have air-
conditioning, increasing health risks
for vulnerable individuals. Many also
do not have basements in which to
take refuge from a rare tornado
event.
Over time, the increasing
average annual temperature
will create additional health
risks due to extreme heat, and
generate an increase in
thunderstorm activity with
lightning/wildfire risk and
localized high winds, including
tornado potential. The risk of
drought could impact the
city’s water supply which is
98% dependent upon
groundwater sources (wells
and springs). Seattle Public
Utilities provides
approximately 2% of the city’s
water supply. The City’s
Water Utility supplies water
to73% of the total city area.
The remaining 27% of the
area within the City is served
by adjacent water districts
(Soos Creek Water and Sewer
District, Water District #90
and others).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 4
Severe
Winter
Weather
The local Renton
climate produces a
significant snowfall or
ice event every few
years. Freezing
temperatures are not
uncommon for several
days in the winter,
although prolonged
hard freezes in the
20’s or below are rare.
The majority of power lines in
Renton are overhead rather than
underground. Snow and ice damage
often results in power outages and
blocked roads from fallen trees.
Hazardous driving conditions cause
accidents. Businesses suffer
economic losses. People can be
housebound for days, compromising
the ability to get food,
pharmaceuticals, and medical care.
Freezing temperatures can result in
broken pipes to residents and
businesses, which interrupts
sprinkler fire protection systems for
some buildings. In a significant snow
or ice event, roof collapse can
become a risk. For the homeless
populations, life safety is at stake if
they cannot take shelter during cold
weather.
Severe winter weather will
continue to recur, causing
transportation disruption,
personal injury, economic
injury, and property damage.
Tsunami n/a n/a n/a
Volcano Although the city is
outside of a direct
lahar flow from any
volcano, secondary
flooding on the Green
River could be the
result of a Mt. Rainier
eruption. Rainier, and
potentially other area
volcanoes, depending
on wind direction, can
generate ashfall that
significantly impacts
the City of Renton.
Ashfall causes premature wear and
failure of automobile engines and
electronics. It disrupts air travel,
shorts out electricity on power lines
causing widespread power outages,
clogs gutters and causes property
damage, accumulates on flat roofs
creating roof collapse risk, creates
slippery road surfaces resulting in
traffic accidents, and triggers
significant health issues in vulnerable
individuals.
The risk of an ashfall event
from the nearest volcano, Mt.
Rainier, remains constant over
time. The power outages,
damage to homes and
businesses, compromised
automobiles and electronics,
and health risks to some
residents would have a
significant impact on the city.
Wildfire Power lines, railroad
cars, structure fires,
lightning, and human
behavior can start fires
anywhere. Parts of the
City of Renton are
heavily treed or
covered in brush, and
some are in the
Wildland/Urban
Interface putting
residents and
businesses there even
more at risk.
Some areas of Renton have poor
evacuation options and limited
access for fire apparatus. A wind-
driven structure fire like the Regency
Woods apartment fire of 2004 can
rapidly engulf neighboring homes,
trapping residents in areas without
sufficient road capacity to handle an
evacuation, and threatening critical
electrical infrastructure.
As climate change generates
higher average temperatures
annually and increased
drought risk, the fire danger
for Western Washington is
increasing. Climatologist
predict that eventually
Western Washington fire risk
will equal that of Eastern
Washington.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 5
Hazard and Asset Overview Maps
Figure 1: Composite hazard map of Renton.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6
Figure 2: Earthquake liquefaction susceptibility.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 7
Figure 3: Flood hazard areas in the mapped floodplains.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 8
Figure 4: Known landslide hazard areas.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 9
Figure 5: Known coal mine hazard areas.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 10
Plan Update Process
To convene the planning team, the city expanded the existing Emergency Management Group’s membership,
which has representation from each department and the Renton Regional Fire Authority. The invitation included
neighboring water utilities and additional stakeholders and subject matter experts who could contribute to the
plan.
The planning process began with some staff attending the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan kickoff meeting
and workshops. The planning team met twice in joint work sessions to review assets and infrastructure, to
determine threats and assess risk, and to identify mitigation solutions to reduce those risks. Planning team
members then worked outside of the group session to develop the mitigation strategies that are included in this
plan revision.
Jurisdiction Planning Team
NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTION
Deborah
Needham
Emergency
Management Director
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jillian Edge Emergency
Management
Coordinator
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Amy Shaffer Court Services
Supervisor
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Al Findlay Building Plan Reviewer City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Dave Neubert Communications
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Krista Kolaz Risk Management
Analyst
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Mehdi Sadri IT Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jennifer Henning Planning Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Katie Nolan Civil Engineer III City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Ron Straka Utility Systems Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Jason Anderson Assistant Airport
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Harry Barrett Airport Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Will Adams Civil Engineer II City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Robert Homan Battalion Chief Renton Regional
Fire Authority
Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Eric Cutshall Transportation
Maintenance Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Cailin Hunsaker Parks & Trails Director City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Alex Tuttle Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Tim Moore GIS Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 11
Vangie Garcia Transportation Planning
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Maryjane Van
Cleave
Recreation &
Neighborhoods
Director
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
George Stahl Water Maintenance
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Patrick Zellner Street Maintenance
Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Richard Marshall Surface Water/Waste
Water Manager
City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Tim Moore GIS Manager City of Renton Mapping support for strategy
discussion
Kelsey Ternes Risk Manager City of Renton Strategy discussions, worksheets,
share information, plan review
Gary Del Rosario GIS Analyst II City of Renton Map production for open house and
plan
Dan Gravelle Water/Sewer
Technician
Coal Creek Utility
District
Participate in strategy discussions
Steve Moye Water/Sewer
Technician
Coal Creek Utility
District
Participate in strategy discussions
Darcy Peterson General Manager King County Water
District 90
Participate in strategy discussions
Plan Update Timeline
PLANNING ACTIVITY DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Hazard Mitigation
Risk Assessments
12/13/2018 Joint development of
risk assessments
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, Coal Creek Utility District, Kent,
KC Water District 90, King County,
Newcastle, Puget Sound Fire, Renton School
District, Soos Creek Water and Sewer
District, Tukwila, Valley Medical Center, and
others in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Annex Kickoff
4/17/2019 Orientation to
planning process and
partner expectations
Renton and neighbors/partners: King
County, Skyway Water and Sewer, and others
in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Support
Meeting
6/10/2019 Guidance on plan
development,
organization, and
narratives
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, King County, Skyway Water and
Sewer, and others in the region
Hazard Mitigation
Strategy Workshop
7/25/2019 Guidance on
development of
strategy worksheets
Renton and neighbors/partners: Auburn,
Bellevue, Coal Creek Utility District, FEMA,
KC Water District 90, King County, Puget
Sound Fire, Renton School District, Tukwila,
WA Dept. of Ecology, WA Dept. of Natural
Resources, WA State Emergency
Management, and others in the region
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Workshop
8/1/2019 Risk assessment,
hazard identification
and introduction of
strategy worksheets
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 12
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Meeting
9/5/2019 Strategy worksheet
development and
prioritization
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
Breakout sessions of
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group as
needed
9/6/2019-
9/27/2019
Reference and
integrate with other
plans, data collection
related to floodplain
administration
questions, review and
updates to past
mitigation strategies
Select City of Renton Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group members
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation
Planning Group
Meeting
10/3/2019 Review compiled
draft plan, prioritize
citywide projects,
identify gaps
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning
Group
Public Outreach
Public Outreach Events
EVENT DATE SUMMARY ATTENDEES
Announcement at
televised City Council
meeting for public
education campaign
8/19/2019 EM Director made a televised
speech before Council that
focused the annual Ready in
Renton campaign on mitigation
measures for the public and
announced the date of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Open
house and the coming direct
mailer to every household in
Renton.
All City Council members, the
Mayor, approximately 20
anonymous/non-registered
public attendees at the
Council meeting, an unknown
number of members of the
Channel 21 television
audience, and 34 web site
visitors to the Council video
archive.
Special web page and
online survey
published
8/29/2019 Published a new informational
web page on mitigation and the
mitigation plan revision.
Published a survey to gather
resident/business input for the
plan revision. Solicited input
from the public on hazard
mitigation.
154 anonymous web page
visitors and 16 survey
completions between 8/29/19
and 9/29/2019.
Direct mailer to every
address in Renton
and/or inclusion in the
electronic utility bill
mailer
8/30/2019 Published an article about
mitigation and the upcoming
plan revision within Renton City
News and direct-mailed or
emailed to every utility customer
in Renton, directing people to
the new web page and survey.
Approximately 28,400 paper
or email newsletters mailed
out to Renton residents and
business.
Social media posts
about hazard
mitigation plan update
and open house
9/5/2019
Published an announcement and
invitation for input to the plan
revision on Facebook and
Twitter.
Received 7,075 post
impressions and interactions
combined.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 13
Information table and
activity at Multicultural
Festival
9/14/2019 Staffed a table at a public event
and solicited
An estimated 1500 members
of the public attended the
festival. Participants who
interacted at the information
table indicated which hazards
concerned them most by a dot
voting exercise.
Email announcement
of open house and
hazard mitigation plan
update
9/17/2019 Emailed Open House and
Hazard Mitigation Plan
announcement with the Byte of
Renton newsletter
Sent to 20,940 subscribers.
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Open House
9/19/2019 Held a two hour open house for
the public with subject matter
experts, maps, and draft plan
materials for comment and
review.
6 Renton residents and 3
nonresidents (including staff)
attended the open house.
Participants indicated which
hazards concerned them most
by a dot voting exercise.
Web page updated
with information and
draft plan ready for
submittal to King
County
11/5/2019 Continued solicitation of
comments and feedback from
the public via email.
No web hits data available at
time of draft plan submission.
Public Priorities for Hazard Mitigation
Information collected from public input meetings, open houses, and online comments indicate that the top two
hazards of greatest concern to residents of Renton are earthquakes and landslides/sinkholes/ground subsidence.
High public awareness of earthquake risk can be attributed to regional education efforts and the 2001 Nisqually
earthquake which highlighted the region’s earthquake risk. The SR530 mudslide, often called the Oso landslide, in
2014, followed by several recent minor landslides and sinkholes in Renton, has likely added to local concerns
about those geologic risks.
The detailed ranking of concern compiled from the online survey and public input meetings is as follows:
1) earthquake
2) landslides, sinkholes, and ground subsidence
3) severe storms (including high winds)
4) winter storms
5) floods
6) wildfires
7) volcano
8) dam failure
9) other hazards not mentioned in this plan
Other hazards of concern mentioned by members of the public include transportation emergencies (plane, truck,
or train crashes), explosions and hazardous materials releases (including gas line ruptures), and long term power
outages. Although this revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses exclusively on natural hazards, future
revisions will address technological or human-caused hazards such as these. Other issues outside of the scope of
this plan (crime, traffic problems) were brought up in the public comments, but are outside of the scope of a
Hazard Mitigation Plan and have been referred to the Police Department to address.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 14
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Program
Hazard mitigation strategies were developed
through a two-step process. The City of Renton
met with an internal planning team, an
expansion of the existing Emergency
Management Group that meets monthly in the
city, to identify a comprehensive range of
mitigation strategies. These strategies were then
prioritized using a process established at the
county level and documented in the base plan.
Each department or agency that has submitted a
strategy plan will continue to work towards
progress on that strategy. This includes advocacy
for budget allocations, workload assignments,
and grant applications that support
accomplishment of those strategies.
Plan Monitoring, Implementation, and
Future Updates
King County leads the mitigation plan
monitoring and update process and schedules
the annual plan check-ins and bi-annual
mitigation strategy updates. Updates on
mitigation projects are solicited by the county
for inclusion in the countywide annual report.
As a participant in the 2020 update to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Renton agrees to convene
their internal planning team at least annually to review their progress on hazard mitigation strategies and to update
the plan based on new data or recent disasters. This will be a breakout session of members of the city’s Emergency
Management Group that will convene in July, August and/or September to conduct this review.
When King County Emergency Management sends federal notices of funding opportunity for the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Grant Program, the city will evaluate the viability of projects eligible for such grants, and will
submit grant applications if appropriate to align with the priorities of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This will be a
key strategy to implement the plan.
The next plan update is expected to be due in April 2025. The City of Renton will submit a letter of intent by
2023, at least two years prior to plan expiration. The county will lead the next regional planning effort, beginning
at least 18 months before the expiration of the 2020 plan.
Continued Public Participation
The City of Renton already maintains substantial public outreach capabilities, focusing on personal preparedness
and education. Information on ongoing progress in implementing the hazard mitigation plan will be integrated
into public outreach efforts. This will provide Renton residents, already engaged in personal preparedness efforts,
with context and the opportunity to provide feedback on the county’s progress and priorities in large-scale
mitigation. In the vertical integration of risk-reduction activities from personal to local to state and federal, it is
important that the public understand how its activities support, and are supported by, larger-scale efforts.
King County Overall Plan Goals
1.Access to Affordable, Healthy Food
2.Access to Health and Human
Services
3.Access to Parks and Natural
Resources
4.Access to Safe and Efficient
Transportation
5.Affordable, Safe, Quality Housing
6.Community and Public Safety
7.Early Childhood Development
8.Economic Development
9.Equitable Law and Justice System
10.Equity in Government Practices
11.Family Wage Jobs and Job Training
12.Healthy Built and Natural
Environments
13.Quality Education
14.Strong, Vibrant Neighborhoods
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 15
The outreach and mitigation teams will also continue to work with media and other agency partners to publicize
mitigation success stories and help explain how vulnerabilities are being fixed. When possible, public tours of
mitigation projects will be organized to allow community members to see successful mitigation in action.
Plan Integration
Integrating the Hazard Mitigation Plan with existing planning processes and programs results in greater impact by
ensuring consistency with jurisdiction priorities and leveraging opportunities for multi-benefit initiatives. This
integration will be achieved by: 1) Sharing information about planning processes across departments, particularly
those that prioritize and invest in infrastructure. This is accomplished monthly in the Emergency Management
Group meeting, and through relationships established in other planning processes. 2) Referencing the plan when
reviewing development proposals or zoning changes. 3) Referencing the plan when considering capital facilities
improvements.4) Referencing the plan when revising Building or Fire Codes.
Over the past five years, the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been successfully integrated with many existing plans,
processes and programs. The city’s Planning Director is involved in both the writing and review of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan and coordinating development and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas
Ordinance. Through our State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the evaluation of hazards is a key step
when considering relevant development proposals or zoning changes. The plan is also referenced in the periodic
revision of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. It forms the basis for the planning assumptions that
underpin the response and recovery aspects of that plan. Prioritized mitigation projects are considered for
inclusion in the Capital Facilities plan whenever it is updated. Where relevant (although not in the past five years)
the Hazard Mitigation Plan also informs Building Code and Fire Code revisions, particularly pertaining to
earthquake and flood risks.
Hazard Mitigation Authorities, Responsibilities, and Capabilities
Plans
PLAN TITLE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT RELATIONSHIP TO HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
Comprehensive
Plan
City of Renton Community
and Economic
Development Department
Community &
Economic
Development
Administrator
Planning Director
Includes policies applicable to
sensitive areas and principles for
future development
Comprehensive
Emergency
Management
Plan
City of Renton Office of
Emergency Management
Emergency
Management Director
Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plans currently
include mitigation approaches
with roles/ responsibilities of
city departments and
community partners
Capital Facilities
Plan
City of Renton Community
Services Department
Administrative Services
Department
Public Works Department
Community Services
Administrator
Administrative
Services Administrator
Public Works
Administrator
Identifies critical facilities and
major improvement or
construction projects that need
to consider
hazards/vulnerabilities, and
appropriate mitigation measures
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 16
Programs, Policies, and Processes
PROGRAM/POLICY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT RELATIONSHIP TO
HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
Building Codes City of Renton Community
and Economic
Development Department
City of Renton Building
Official
Building code
development depends on
the same understanding
of hazards
Emergency
Management
Program
City of Renton Executive
Department/Emergency
Management Division
Emergency Management
Director
Tracking of disaster
impacts, new or changing
hazards, public
engagement around
mitigation.
Critical Areas
Ordinance
Community and Economic
Development
Community & Economic
Development Administrator
Planning Director
Regulates development in
sensitive areas
Fire Code Renton Regional Fire
Authority
Fire Marshall Fire code development
depends on the same
understanding of hazards
Entities Responsible for Hazard Mitigation
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION POINT OF CONTACT RESPONSIBILITY(S)
Community and
Economic Development
Department
Community and
Economic Development
Administrator
Planning Director
Policy and planning input to decrease community
vulnerability over time, and react to emergencies.
Community Services
Department
Community Services
Administrator
Mitigating damage to city facilities and natural
resources
Executive Department,
Emergency
Management Division
Emergency Management
Director
Public education and engagement, planning process
oversight
Public Works Public Works
Administrator
Critical infrastructure mitigation (roads, bridges,
utilities, etc.), flood plain management, hazard
emergency response and recovery.
Renton Regional Fire
Authority
Fire Chief Wildfire mitigation, public education and engagement,
fire code development and enforcement
National Flood Insurance Program
The City of Renton is a member and actively participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, which makes
flood insurance available to Renton property owners. The City oversees compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program requirements for new construction and provides information to property owners in Special
Flood Hazard Areas regarding flood insurance requirements.
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 17
What department is responsible for floodplain
management in your community?
Shared responsibility and partnership between the
Community and Economic Development
Department and the Public Works Department.
Who is your community’s floodplain
administrator? (title/position)
Community and Economic Development
Department Administrator
What is the date of adoption of your flood
damage prevention ordinance?
May 8, 1981 (Ordinance 3537), last update on July 5,
2015 Ord. 5757.
When was the most recent Community
Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
June 17, 2019, Matt Gerlach, Regional NFIP
Coordinator and Dave Radabaugh, Washington State
Department of Ecology Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program
Does your community have any outstanding
NFIP compliance violations that need to be
addressed? If so, please state what they are?
No outstanding NFIP compliance violations.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address
the flood risk within your community? If so,
please state why.
Once the new King County DFIRM following the
letter of final determination from FEMA, the flood
hazard maps will adequately address flood risks in
Renton except for in the portion of the Green River
floodplain in Renton. The Green River floodplain is
identified as a seclusion area in the DFIRM that still
utilizes the old FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
until and an updated Flood Insurance Study and map
is completed.
Does your floodplain management staff need any
assistance or training to support its floodplain
management program? If so, what type of
training/assistance is needed?
Yes, overview of NFIP current requirements for new
and existing employees. Training on the information
needed and how to complete the updated Building
Elevation Certificate and training needed for
becoming a certified floodplain manager.
Does your community participate in the
Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, what is
your CRS Classification and are you seeing to
improve your rating? If not, is your community
interested in joining CRS?
Yes. CRS Classification 5. The City of Renton is
seeking to maintain this rating and possibly improve
our rating as part of the next CRS verification review.
How many Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and
Repetitive Loss (RL) properties are located in
your jurisdiction?
SRL: 0
RL: 0
Has your community ever conducted an elevation
or buy out of a flood-prone property? If so, what
fund source did you use? If not, are you
interested in pursuing buyouts of flood prone
properties?
n/a
Hazard Mitigation Strategies
The city has made notable progress in mitigation projects over the past five years. Major accomplishments
include completion of a major dredging project on the Cedar River to prevent flooding, funding of and
participation in the 2015-2016 LiDAR study to better identify landslide-prone areas, securing of funding for
the design, permitting and construction of improvements to the levees and floodwalls needed for certification,
obtaining a grant to reduce flood hazards associated with Madsen Creek, and seismic retrofitting and
repainting of three downtown area bridges funded by three separate grants.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 18
In the reformatting of this plan, several strategies have been reevaluated, and some have been deprecated.
Others have been converted into the new format of strategies. Those changes have been indicated in the table s
below.
2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategy Status
STRATEGY DESCRIPTION PRIORITY STATUS
RN #1 Maintain good standing
under NFIP
Medium Maintained. Dropping as a specific strategy as compliance
is institutionalized, and embedded in multiple new flood-
related strategies
RN#2 Pursue funding for
mitigation
High Have applied for multiple mitigation grants. Dropping and
rolling into new strategy combined with RN#3,
converting to “Funding/Partnership Mitigation Strategy”
RN#3 Public/private
partnerships
Low Dropping and rolling into new strategy combined with
RN #2, “Funding Partnership Strategies”, also incorporate
into “Water System Risk Assessment”
RN#4 Detailed inventories of
seismically at-risk
buildings/infrastructure
Low Dropping as a specific strategy. Data exists but no staff
assigned to compile it further for buildings. Infrastructure
component has been converted to “Water System Risk
Assessment”
RN#5 Integrate with planning
and regulatory
documents
Medium Has been institutionalized as a standard practice.
Dropping as a specific strategy.
RN#6 Enforce Critical Area
and Shoreline Master
Program regulations
Medium Has been institutionalized as a standard practice.
Dropping as a specific strategy.
RN#7 Dredging, maintenance
of floodwalls and
levees
High Converting to “Cedar River Gravel Removal Project”,
“Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project
– Operation and Maintenance”, and “Cedar River Section
205 Levee Certification Project”
RN#8 Surface Water Utility
programs for flood
hazard management
High Converting to “Cedar River Gravel Removal Project”,
“Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project
– Operation and Maintenance”, and “Cedar River Section
205 Levee Certification Project”
RN#9 Member of FEMA
Community Rating
System, seeking to
improve
Medium Increased to CRS Classification 5. Dropping this formal
strategy, as maintaining this classification and seeking to
improve it is institutionalized.
RN#10 Re-evaluate future land
use in floodplain
Medium Dropping, as this is now standard practice
RN#11 Underground power
for new developments
Medium Dropping, as this is now required in code
RN#12 Seismic evaluation and
prioritization of city
owned buildings/
infrastructure
Medium Specific strategies will be developed to replace this.
Currently focusing on new strategy, “Airport Earthquake
and Seismic Mitigation”
RN#13 FEMA information
distribution on seismic
retrofit
Low Dropping, as this information is always available to
customers
RN#14 Funding for seismic
retrofit
High Converting to current focus, “Airport Earthquake and
Seismic Mitigation”
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 19
RN#15 Support county-wide
mitigation initiatives
Medium Converting/rolling together with #16 into “Regional
Planning Mitigation Strategy”
RN#16 Plan maintenance Medium Converting/rolling together with #15 into “Regional
Planning Mitigation Strategy”
The following strategies emerged as the best mitigation focus for the City of Renton over the next five years,
with some projects, such as the Cedar River Gravel Removal Project, in a monitoring status to determine
longer range mitigation needs 10 years out or more.
2020 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
STRATEGY LEAD AGENCY/POC TIMELINE PRIORITY
Airport Earthquake and
Seismic Mitigation
Renton Public Works/Airport
Manager
2020-2022 High
Cedar River Section 205 Flood
Hazard Reduction Project –
Operation and Maintenance
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
Ongoing Medium
Cedar River Gravel Removal
Project
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2031-2037 Medium
Cedar River Section 205 Levee
Certification Project
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2025 Medium
Coal Mine Study Mitigation
Strategy
Renton Community and Economic
Development/Planning Director and
Building Plan Reviewer
2020 Low
Funding/Partnership
Mitigation Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2022 Low
Lower Cedar River Flood Risk
Reduction Feasibility Study
Renton Public Works/ Surface Water
Engineering Manager
2025 Medium
Maintenance Facility Standby
Emergency Power
Community Services Department
Facilities Director
2025 High
Regional Planning Mitigation
Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2025 Medium
Utility Pumping Facilities
Back-Up Power
Renton Public Works/ Maintenance
Services Director and Utility Systems
Director
2022 High
Volcanic Ash & Wildfire
Smoke Mitigation Strategy
Renton Emergency
Management/Emergency
Management Director
2021 Low
Water System Risk
Assessment
Renton Public Works/ Water Utility
Engineering Manager and Water
Maintenance Manager
2022-2025 Medium
Water Utility Seismic
Resilience
Renton Public Works/ Water Utility
Engineering Manager and Water
Maintenance Manager
2022-2025 High
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 20
Future Hazard Mitigation Plan Revisions
The City of Renton participated in a King County Tree Canopy Assessment at the end of 2018. The City of
Renton is analyzing this data for areas that fall within the City of Renton’s boundaries. This data will be
incorporated into a Wildfire Fuels Map that will be included in the next major revision of the plan. It will help
identify those areas within the city most at risk from a Wildland/Urban Interface wildfire.
Information is being gathered for non-natural hazards that were not included in the 2019-2020 revision of this
plan. Future revisions of this plan will address cybersecurity threats to infrastructure as well as hazardous materials
release or explosion threats from several sources.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 21
Airport Earthquake and Seismic Mitigation
Lead POC
Jason Anderson,
Asst. Airport
Manager
Harry Barrett
Airport Manager
William Adams
Airport Engineer
Partner Points of Contact
FAA
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake;
Landslide/Sinkhole
Safe operation of Air Traffic
Control Tower and Seaplane Base
(Critical Infrastructure)
Uninterrupted Transportation of
goods/supplies
Economic Development
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$1.8M Retrofit cost
$650,000 City Cost
FEMA Grants
FAA AIP, CIP,
Small Airports
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Mitigate the seismic impact of the Air Traffic Control Tower in future events and repair current damage from the past
1994 event(s). The Tower in not currently rated for either Collapse Prevention, Life Safety or Immediate Occupancy
in case of a seismic event. Generally, an Immediate Occupancy performance level is assigned to a building that is
deemed an essential facility and is required to be functional shortly after the design-level earthquake. The 2012
International Building Code (IBC) classifies aviation control towers and air traffic control centers as essential facilities.
Mitigation Strategy
The Renton Municipal Airport’s Air Traffic Control Tower, built in the 1960’s, does not meet current structural code.
Recent engineering studies have identified the following deficiencies; excessive horizontal drift ratios, inadequate beam
connections to the weak axes of columns, inadequate panel zone shear capacities, lack of beam bottom flange bracing,
impacts of site liquefaction, lack of connection between the timber piles and the concrete pile caps to resist uplift
forces due to an earthquake, which is of particular concern for a building with the height-to-base width aspect ratio of
a control tower. To remedy the tower to an ASCE 41-13, Retrofit Standard BSE-2E, Tier III, Risk III, “Limited
Safety Structural Performance, Non-Structural Performance not considered” (Life Safety) rating, an exoskeleton and
bracing will be fitted. As per the last official notice Wiley Post Seaplane Base is considered a strategic asset according
to the Puget Sound Transportations Recovery Annex. Recent survey has identified the Seaplane Ramp is settling and
developed significant cracking due to a developed void underneath, the Airport needs to rebuild/reinforce ramp.
Multiple Conduits and water mains are routed under the runway. Reinforcing this infrastructure to resist seismic
activity would prevent loss of air traffic control communication capabilities and hydraulic mining under the runway
surface.
2-Year Objectives
Apply for funding through
FEMA (PDM)
Complete retrofit of Tower
Mitigation Project
Apply for FAA Funding, Master
Plan
5-Year Objectives
Evaluate remaining life and determine
appropriateness of complete replacement.
Conduct siting study for new tower
Relocate/fix Seaplane Base
Reinforce communication conduit
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain Air Traffic
Control Tower to a
Critical Infrastructure
Standard, Non-Structural
to be considered
Implementation Plan/Actions
Combine FEMA grants (PDM) and Airport funds to the Airport Tower Mitigation Project
Plan for future siting and building of new tower
Performance Measures
Successfully eliminate the structural seismic concern at the airport by retrofitting and/or building a new
facility
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 22
Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project – Operation and
Maintenance
Lead POC
City of
Renton
Surface
Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points
of Contact
King County
Flood Alerts
Renton
Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam Failure, Flood
Reduce the risk of levee failure
Maintain federal sponsorship of the
Cedar River Section 205 Levees
and eligibility for flood response
assistance under PL84-99
Maintaining the level of protection
of the Cedar River Section 205
Levees to, at minimum, the 100-
year flow
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources / Estimated Costs
$ Cost is dependent on specific
maintenance needs
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
Surface Water Maintenance Fund
Federal disaster funding through
the Army Corps of Engineers
King County Flood Control
District
Strategy Vision/Objective
Following the construction of the Section 205 Levees along the Cedar from Williams Ave N to Lake Washington, in
cooperation with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), obligations for operation and maintenance were
transferred to the City of Renton in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&MM). Additionally,
the USACE conducts routine annual and 5-year periodic inspections of the Levees in order to determine maintenance
needs and rate their acceptability and eligibility for flood response assistance. The objective of this program is to
operate and maintain the levees in accordance with the O&MM and maintain a minimally acceptable rating following
each USACE levee inspection.
Mitigation Strategy
Maintain close cooperation with the USACE and Boeing
Adhere to the inspections, flood stage procedures, bridge operation, closure operation, and maintenance
requirements of the OM&M
Secure funding for routine repair projects
2-Year Objectives
Same as long-
term objectives
5-Year Objectives
Same as long-
term objectives
Long-Term Objectives
Prevent levee failure due to lack of maintenance or improper
operation.
Maintain eligibility for federal flood response assistance
Implementation Plan/Actions
Monitor flows on the Cedar River during major regional storm events
Initiate levee repair or vegetation management projects in a timely manner following the determination of a
deficiency
Conduct levee inspections with the USACE and as required by the O&MM
Performance Measures
Obtain a minimally acceptable rating from the USACE on an annual basis
Operate and maintain the Section 205 Levees in accordance with the O&MM
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 23
Cedar River Gravel Removal Project
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of Contact
King County Flood
Control Zone District
Renton Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Flood
Reducing the risk of flooding
during the 100-year flow along
Section 205 of the Cedar River
Maintaining the level of protection
of the Cedar River Section 205
Levees to, at minimum, the 100-
year flow
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 10.5 Million
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
King County Flood
Control Zone District
Capital Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Section 205 of the Cedar River requires periodic maintenance dredging due to continuous sediment accumulation
which gradually reduces the conveyance capacity of the river, and level of flood protection offered by the Section 205
levees from Williams Ave S to Lake Washington. The objective of this project is to periodically (every 12-18 years)
dredge the Cedar River bed to reduce the risk of flooding and protect adjacent properties.
Mitigation Strategy
The City of Renton monitors sediment accumulation on a yearly basis by performing cross section surveys along the
lower 2 miles of the river. When the river bed reaches or significantly approaches the “warning elevation”, defined as
1.5 ft below the “maximum bed elevation”, the City initiates the design and permitting efforts of a maintenance
dredging project. The “maximum bed elevation” is the river bed elevation above which the levees in Section 205 can
no longer provide 2 feet of freeboard during the 100-year flood. Typically, a maintenance dredging project also
includes bank stabilization and outfall repairs needed to maintain the structural stability of the levees.
2-Year Objectives
Keep monitoring
sediment accumulation
Establish funding
requirements for the
next Gravel Removal
project
5-Year Objectives
Keep monitoring sediment accumulation
Secure funding for the design, permitting,
construction and mitigation requirements of the
next Gravel Removal Project
If required, initiate the design of the next Gravel
Removal Project
Long-Term Objectives
Successfully dredge the
Cedar River and maintain
the flood protection
capacity of the Section
205 levees
Implementation Plan/Actions
Annual survey of sediment accumulation
Maintenance dredging of the Cedar River every 12-18 years
Performance Measures
Successful project execution is achieved when the Cedar River gets dredged before reaching the “maximum
bed elevation”, in compliance with all permitting and mitigation requirements.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 24
Cedar River Section 205 Levee Certification Project
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
USACE – Seattle
District
King County Flood
Control Zone
District
The Boeing Co.
Renton Municipal
Airport
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam failure, Flood
Increasing the level of flood
protection during the 100-year flow
Achieving levee accreditation in
accordance with FEMA guidelines
and maintaining Zone X
classification
Protecting Renton Municipal
Airport and Boeing from being
subjected to floodplain development
regulations and flood insurance
requirements
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 5,000,000
Surface Water
Capital
Improvement
Program
King County Flood
Control Zone
District Capital
Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
The Cedar River Section 205 Levees are currently provisionally accredited levees, with final accreditation contingent
upon design and construction of levee improvements that were determined to be needed in order meet current FEMA
accreditation standards, and provide sufficient freeboard during the 100-year flood. If left uncertified, the levees
would not be mapped by FEMA and adjacent properties would be regulated as if they were in the floodplain.
Mitigation Strategy
Several sections of the levees and floodwalls need improvements in order to provide sufficient freeboard or increase
structural stability. The City of Renton is permitting, designing and constructing these improvements.
2-Year Objectives
Permit and design levee
improvements
Submit a new CLOMR to FEMA
showing final design drawings
and demonstrating Endangered
Species Act Compliance
5-Year Objectives
Construct levee
improvements
Submit a LOMR to FEMA
with the final project report
and record drawing and
obtain accreditation.
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain levee accreditation with
FEMA
Initiate a re-accreditation project
once the certification issued by the
consultant expires.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Using a phased approach (Assessment, permitting, design, construction, final accreditation)
Coordinating with the USACE on Section 408 review and other agencies on required permits
Using an effective project management approach and closely monitor schedule closely
Performance Measures
Several milestones during the design of the levee improvements will serve as performance checkpoints.
Successful accreditation relies on adequate project management and control, clear communication and
collaboration with the permitting agencies, and successful construction of the improvements.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 25
Coal Mine Study Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Planning Director
Building Plan Reviewer
Partner Points of Contact
US Office of Surface Mines
Olympic Pipeline
Bonneville Power
Administration
Seattle City Light
Puget Sound Energy
Seattle Public Utilities
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquakes;
Landslides/Sinkholes
Goals: 6
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$100k
FEMA
Match of $25k in
staffing by City
of Renton
Strategy Vision/Objective
Update and verify historic maps of coal mine features including mine shafts and coal mine seams and overlay these
with vulnerable infrastructure including regional fuel pipelines, electrical transmission corridors, regional water
pipelines, sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, etc.), and roadway to assist in identifying potential hazards. Identify
methods to stabilize areas where critical infrastructure is at risk from subsidence.
Mitigation Strategy
Identify potential conflicts between historic coalmine features and critical infrastructure and sensitive
receptors.
Identify mitigation measures to stabilize areas with high risk for subsidence.
Avoid developing new critical infrastructure and/or sensitive receptors in areas with identified subsidence risk
from historic coal mining activities.
2-Year Objectives
Fund study to verify location and
depth of abandoned and closed
historic coalmine features, and
identify where these features may
threaten critical infrastructure.
Identify mitigation to stabilize
known areas of conflict
5-Year Objectives
Short term project will be complete in
two years
Long-Term Objectives
Short term project will be
complete in two years
Implementation Plan/Actions
Fund study in 2020 to verify locations and depths of abandoned and closed historic coalmines and coal
mining features; overlay with critical infrastructure and develop mitigation to prevent subsidence and threat to
critical infrastructure and vulnerable sensitive receptors.
Convene stakeholder meetings in late 2020 to share study findings and develop joint strategies to develop
mitigation measures.
Performance Measures
Successfully identify potential hazards to determine current hazard risk and strategies to avoid impacts of
subsidence on critical infrastructure such as pipelines and roads, and vulnerable sensitive receptors such as
schools and hospitals.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 26
Funding/Partnership Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Emergency
Management Director
Partner Points of
Contact
Washington State
Military Dept. EM
Division
FEMA
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 4, 6, 8, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$0
Staff time
City share TBD
Strategy Vision/Objective
Leverage community partnerships (public and private) and grant funding opportunities to address mitigation priorities
within the city.
Mitigation Strategy
Reach out to community partners to determine shared concerns and priorities around hazard mitigation.
Negotiate cost-share agreements for shared projects, or allocate matching funds from city budget to meet
grant requirements.
2-Year Objectives
Identify new partners for
mitigation projects where
appropriate
Submit grant applications when
opportunities arise
5-Year Objectives
Complete one project with partner
participation and/or grant funding
Long-Term Objectives
Continue to cultivate a
community culture that
participates in investment
in mitigation
Implementation Plan/Actions
Update Greater Renton COAD membership contact information to renew relationships and make new
connections
Introduce mitigation concepts in meetings with external stakeholders
Maintain grant documentation files and tracking system for applications
Performance Measures
Submit one grant application every two years
Complete one project with partner participation and/or grant funding
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 27
Lower Cedar River Flood Risk Reduction Feasibility Study
Lead POC
City of Renton
Surface Water
Engineering
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Flood
Control Zone
District
King County
Renton Municipal
Airport
Boeing
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Flood
Additional flood risk
reduction beyond the 100-
year flood
Identifying future flood
improvement projects along
the lower 2 miles of the
Cedar River
Goals: 4, 6, 8
Funding Sources / Estimated
Costs
$ 500,000
Surface Water Capital
Improvement Program
King County Flood Control
Zone District Capital
Improvement Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Identify the most feasible level of flood protection along the lower 2 miles of the Cedar River and specific
improvement projects to implement in order to reach that level of protection.
Mitigation Strategy
The Lower Cedar River traverses through a major commercial, industrial, recreational and residential area in the City
of Renton, vital to the local economy. Section 205, from Williams Ave N to Lake Washington is protected from the
100-year flood by levees. However, overtopping could occur at locations upstream of this reach and result in minor
localized flooding of roadways. This study would explore measures to prevent such localized flooding. Also, during
floods larger than the 200-year flood event, extensive overtopping of the left and right banks upstream of Logan Ave
could occur. This study would explore measures to reduce the flooding risks during such extreme events and the
feasibility of achieving such a level of protection.
2-Year Objectives
Identify desired level of flood
protection requirement
Identify required flood
improvement projects
5-Year Objectives
Plan and identify funding needs
for proposed improvement
projects
Design and implement smaller
flood improvement projects
Long-Term Objectives
Design and implement larger
flood improvement projects
Improve overall flood protection
along lower Cedar River
Implementation Plan/Actions
Seek grants from the King County Flood Control District, FEMA, or Floodplains by Design to fund the
design and construction projects identified for improvement.
o Build on existing partnerships with environmental and community organizations to ensure that design
meets the needs of all stakeholders.
o Assess design to ensure that it meets estimated increased flows due to climate change.
Construction of flood risk reduction improvements.
Performance Measures
Successfully identify projects to reduce the risk of flooding, improve resiliency to climate change and extreme
weather events, protect private property, and preserve key economic assets.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 28
Maintenance Facility Standby Emergency Power
Lead POC
Community Services
Department Facilities
Director
Partner Points of
Contact
Public Works
Department
Maintenance Services
Director and Utility
Systems Director
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Dam failure; Earthquake;
Flood; Landslide; Severe Weather;
Severe Winter Weather; Volcano;
Wildfire
Ensure full operation of facility
during power outages to allow
response to hazards.
Goals:4, 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$500,000
City
FEMA HMGP
Strategy Vision/Objective
Provide back-up emergency power generation at the City of Renton Maintenance Facility to allow for full operation of
the facility, which is the City’s Emergency Command center for responding to any significant hazard that results in an
emergency. The facility is used by the Street Maintenance, Surface Water Utility Maintenance, Wastewater
Maintenance, Fleet Services and Water Utility Maintenance Section. All City Departments rely on the Facility for
fueling and maintenance/repair of City vehicles. All Public Works equipment that may be needed during an
emergency is stored at the facility and City maintenance personnel are dispatched from the facility when responding to
hazards. The SCADA system controls for the Water Utility operation of the City’s water supply wells, reservoirs,
pump stations and treatment facilities is located at the facility along with the SCADA system for Wastewater Utility
and Surface Water Utility lift stations and pump stations.
Mitigation Strategy
The Maintenance Facility currently only has back-up power generation that allow for partial operation, which impacts
the City’s ability to respond to hazards that result in power outages. The increased back-up power generation will
provide full power to the facility for hazard emergency response without an limitation due to only partial power at the
City of Renton Maintenance Shop Facility.
2-Year Objectives
Secure funding for design
Hire consultant for design
Start design and permitting
5-Year Objectives
Secure funding for construction
Complete final design, construction plans,
specifications and permitting
Complete construction
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain City operations
at the Facility during
power outages caused any
hazard event for response
to the event.
Implementation Plan/Actions
Secure funding from possible funding sources, complete consultant selection process for design and execute
design contract.
Complete design and permitting and secure funding for construction.
Advertise for bids and award construction contract and complete construction.
Implement maintenance of the back-up power generator and test periodically.
Performance Measures
Back-up power generation is installed at the City of Renton Maintenance Facility to allow full operation at the
facility during a hazard that results in a power outage.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 29
Regional Planning Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Emergency
Management Director
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Office
of Emergency
Management
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 4, 6, 8, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 0
Staff time
Strategy Vision/Objective
As a partner in the development of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the city will actively engage in
contributing to the county-wide initiatives that require stakeholder participation and support. This includes
participating in the plan maintenance strategy identified in the plan.
Mitigation Strategy
Identify opportunities to support county-wide initiatives identified in the overall King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in the plan.
2-Year Objectives
Produce an annual review and
progress report
5-Year Objectives
Produce a completely revised plan
Long-Term Objectives
Maintain a current and
relevant Renton Annex to
the King County
Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Implementation Plan/Actions
Continue to conduct an annual plan review, to include a review of county-wide initiatives.
Identify opportunities for Renton to contribute to county-wide initiatives, and participate accordingly.
Conduct a comprehensive plan revision in 5 years.
Performance Measures
Annual review is completed and progress support submitted to King County.
5 year plan revision is completed and submitted to King County.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 30
Utility Pumping Facilities Back-Up Power
Lead POC
Utility Systems Director
Public Works
Maintenance Services
Director
Partner Points of
Contact
DOH
DOE
Renton RFA
King County
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake; Flood; Severe
Weather; Severe Winter Weather
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 7M (water)
$ 1M (wastewater)
$ 1M (surface water)
Capital
Improvement
Programs
Strategy Vision/Objective
Improve reliability at utility pumping facilities with on-site standby power systems. These projects could prevent
downtime of critical facilities in order to maintain public health and safety.
Mitigation Strategy
Critical pumping facilities for the city include 11 domestic water booster pump stations, 20 wastewater lift stations,
and 2 stormwater pump stations. Not all of these facilities currently have back-up power. During power outages,
pumping facilities that lack back-up power 1) risk disruption to water and wastewater services; 2) reduce flood control
capabilities at stormwater pump stations; and 3) cause additional strain/wear to on-line pumping facilities, which
consequently decreases the equipment’s life expectancy. The City will evaluate emergency standby power options,
including installing on-site generators and increasing fuel storage, to lessen the impact of future power outages at
utility pumping facilities.
2-Year Objectives
Construction of back-up power
improvement projects in
pre-design phase
Identify additional back-up
power improvement projects
5-Year Objectives
Plan and identify funding needs for
proposed improvement projects
Design and implement priority back-up
power improvement projects
Long-Term Objectives
Design and implement
remaining back-up power
improvement projects
Improve overall reliability
at critical pumping
facilities
Implementation Plan/Actions
Complete construction of back-up power improvements at four wastewater lift stations.
Complete final design and construction of back-up power improvements at two domestic water booster pump
stations that are currently in the 30 percent pre-design phase.
Allocate capital funding to design and implement additional back-up power improvement projects.
Performance Measures
Solutions maintain the continuity of operations, protect property, protect the environment, and protect key
economic assets.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 31
Volcanic Ash & Wildfire Smoke Mitigation Strategy
Lead POC
Renton Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Partner Points of
Contact
King County Public
Health
Puget Sound Clean
Air Agency
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Volcano; Wildfire
Goals: 6, 12
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
None
Strategy Vision/Objective
Our objective is to inform and prepare our community for the impacts of both volcanic ash deposits and wildfire-
caused ash. Since the likelihood of volcanic eruption is low, and the wildfire ash impacts are sporadic, our strategy will
rely on public communication and outreach. We shall conduct an annual public awareness campaign in conjunction
with wildfire impact awareness to ensure residents have an understanding of the hazards affecting the city, actions
they can take, and what we as the local jurisdiction can provide. Our objective is to inform and prepare our
community for the impacts of both volcanic ash deposits and wildfire-caused ash. Since the likelihood of volcanic
eruption is low, and the wildfire ash impacts are sporadic, our strategy will rely on public communication and
outreach. We shall conduct an annual public awareness campaign in conjunction with wildfire impact awareness to
ensure residents have an understanding of the hazards affecting the city, actions they can take, and what we as the
local jurisdiction can provide.
Mitigation Strategy
May 18th, the anniversary of Mt. St. Helen’s eruption, will serve as an annual ash and wildfire smoke awareness
campaign launch. It will include social media and public communications regarding education on the risk to Renton
residents; appropriate actions if the hazard occurs; and ways to lessen the impact of poor air quality on human health,
as well as transportation and general visibility. Target audiences include: Building owners & businesses - connecting
them with air filtration providers as requested; Individuals - personal preparedness measures (staying indoors, use of
appropriate masks); vehicle mitigation efforts (covering cars, avoid driving in limited visibility, dangers to vehicle
filtration systems); methods of securing your home from air quality and ash impacts
2-Year Objectives
Community awareness of
impacts of volcanic or wildfire
caused ash hazards.
5-Year Objectives
Normalize ash hazards and impacts as part
of wider air quality warnings, with public
safety actions known by the community
Long-Term Objectives
A well-prepared community with
baseline awareness of possible hazards
and protective actions they can take
Implementation Plan/Actions
Design survey alongside partners to understand current levels of awareness
Design social media and public outreach campaign, including messaging and strategy
Implement plan during late spring – summer months.
Conduct survey at the end of summer to better understand community’s awareness of local hazards and their
impacts, including ash impacts.
Performance Measures
Increase in awareness and engagement with post-campaign surveys of community.
Increase in engagement with outreach efforts (for example, with online media campaign, in-person outreach)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 32
Water System Risk Assessment
Lead POC
Water Utility
Engineering Manager
Water Maintenance
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
Renton RFA
EPA
LEPC
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: All
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$ 100,000
Water Capital
Improvement
Program
Strategy Vision/Objective
Develop a risk and resilience assessment that identifies the most significant malevolent acts and natural hazards to the
water utility’s critical assets, reduces vulnerabilities of these critical assets, prepares for the threats that could occur,
and mitigates the potential consequences of incidents that do occur.
Mitigation Strategy
The City of Renton is a community water system that provides supply, treatment, storage, and distribution of
dependable and safe water. The Water Utility is required under the 2018 America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA)
to assess the risks to, and resilience of, its water system. The risk assessment will 1) inventory at-risk water
infrastructure that contribute to critical functionality of the water system; 2) evaluate the risk and known
vulnerabilities to significant threats and hazards; and 3) implement prevention, protection, and mitigation activities for
identified threats and hazards. The Water Utility will develop partnerships with local emergency response and
planning groups to foster hazard mitigation activities.
2-Year Objectives
Develop risk assessment
Develop policy changes to
mitigate the risks to the critical
drinking water infrastructure
5-Year Objectives
Assess the effectiveness of efforts to
secure and strengthen the resilience of
critical drinking water infrastructure
Update risk assessment
Long-Term Objectives
Increase drinking water
infrastructure resilience
to malevolent acts and
natural hazards
Update risk assessment
every 5 years per AWIA
regulations
Implementation Plan/Actions
Develop the water system risk assessment.
Use as a prioritized plan for security upgrades, modifications of operational procedures, and policy changes to
mitigate risks.
Performance Measures
Identifies potential improvements that serve multiple purposes to enhance operations and resilience of the
drinking water system.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 33
Water Utility Seismic Resilience
Lead POC
Water Utility
Engineering Manager
Water Maintenance
Manager
Partner Points of
Contact
PNSN/USGS
Renton RFA
DOH
Hazards Mitigated / Goals
Addressed
Hazards: Earthquake
Goals: 6, 8
Funding Sources /
Estimated Costs
$100,000 ShakeAlert
$1.8M Retrofit
PDM & Water
capital budget
Strategy Vision/Objective
Reduce potential damage/losses to critical water facilities from an earthquake by 1) integration of an early warning
system; 2) installation of seismic shut-off valves on water storage facilities; and 3) development of post-earthquake
isolation and control actions. These projects could improve the survivability of the municipal water supply system,
reduce loss following an earthquake, and potentially save lives.
Mitigation Strategy
Critical water facilities for the city include 9 production wells, 1 spring, 11 booster pump stations, and 10 reservoirs.
Because Washington State has one of the highest risks of expected casualties and economic loss from earthquakes in
the nation, the city needs water system infrastructure improvements for seismic resiliency. The Water Utility will apply
to participate in PNSN’s new pilot program that monitors earthquake activity using a network of sensors distributed
across the region. The ShakeAlert system, connected into the existing SCADA system, will alert the Water Utility,
which allows for automatic control actions and for emergency protocols to be taken by city personnel before shaking
occurs. The Water Utility will also evaluate retrofitting 6 existing reservoirs with seismic valves to automatically
shutoff water flow at the tank to prevent complete water loss. The Water Utility will develop post-earthquake isolation
and control protocols, which are needed to ensure adequate water storage and distribution during an emergency.
2-Year Objectives
Apply for grant funding for
pre-design of ShakeAlert, then
apply for the pilot program
Develop policies/protocols for
post-earthquake drinking water
isolation and control actions
5-Year Objectives
Fund pre-design of seismic valve retrofit
Allocate funding in the capital budget to
fund implementation of ShakeAlert and
seismic shut-off valve retrofit
Utilize ShakeAlert Earthquake Early
Warning for water system
Long-Term Objectives
Seismic valves on all
water tanks
Provide earthquake early
warning to residents with
ShakeAlert
Implementation Plan/Actions
Apply for a grant from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance through PDM to fund planning, policy
development, and pre-design of ShakeAlert device/software. If grant application is unsuccessful, include
planning / design of early warning system in 2021 budget.
Hire consultant to perform planning /design services and apply for ShakeAlert pilot program. If accepted into
pilot program, allocate capital funding to configure alarm signal and connect to SCADA to automatically
initiate predetermined control actions following a triggered earthquake alarm.
Fund planning, pre-design, and construction of seismic valve retrofit on water reservoirs.
Performance Measures
Solutions maintain the continuity of operations and water service
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2021 –
2026 BUSINESS PLAN TO STRENGTHEN ITS STAND AGAINST RACISM AND IN
SUPPORT OF RACIAL EQUITY.
WHEREAS, since 2008 the City of Renton has been diligently working to practice
inclusion, eliminate inequity through internal practices, citywide initiatives and
partnerships with other institutions and the community; and
WHEREAS, on the 24th of April 2017, the City of Renton issued a proclamation to stand
against racism; and
WHEREAS, Renton residents value initiatives that will end race-based disparities and
make Renton a more equitable, inclusive, and dignified place for all to live; and
WHEREAS, in order for the City of Renton to fully embrace the change needed to move
our community forward, it is necessary to recognize, and acknowledge our country’s history of
discrimination and racial injustice. The land currently known as Renton was the ancestral land of
the Duwamish People and other Coast Salish Nations until their forceful and violent relocation at
the hands of white colonizers who broke the Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855 and failed to provide
a reservation and other benefits in exchange for 54,000 acres of land. It is important to
remember that the Duwamish are still here and continue to be stewards of this land; and
WHEREAS, Renton reaffirms its commitment, in collaboration with all residents, to
review our ordinances, pursue policies and take action to ensure civil and human rights to all
individuals and its commitment to eradicating the historical and current effects of institutional
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
RESOLUTION NO. ________
2
racism inflicted on communities of Black, Indigenous, people of color, immigrants, and refugees;
and
WHEREAS, Renton hereby rejects prejudice and bigotry based on race, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, or national origin, and condemns the actions, speech, and attitudes of those
who promote hate against any race, ethnicity or other basis, in an effort to interfere with the
unalienable rights of any human being; and
WHEREAS, the term institutional racism describes societal patterns and structures that
impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions on identifiable groups, on the basis of race
or ethnicity. The term structural racism refers to the collective impact on whole communities as
a result of institutional racism across multiple organizations/institutions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton hereby declares Renton an anti-racist city that strives to
use the Renton Equity Lens to eradicate racial economic inequities and institutional racism to
value all residents and be a welcoming place to all people; and
WHEREAS, the Council annually adopts a six-year business plan and the City’s Business
Plan is the overarching document that guides all decisions, priorities and resources, to help us
reach our mission and strategic goals, as well as maintain the operational and financial objectives
of Renton; and
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the 2020 – 2025 Business Plan at its annual retreat on
February 28, 2020 and at its regular Committee of the Whole meeting on June 22, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to update the 2021 – 2026 Business Plan to strengthen its
stand against racism and in support of racial equity;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
RESOLUTION NO. ________
3
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The 2021 – 2026 Business Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A, is hereby adopted by the Council, subject to later amendment as the Council sees fit.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _______________________, 2020.
______________________________
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _______________________, 2020.
______________________________
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1852:7/8/2020
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
CITY OF RENTONBusiness Plan 2021–2026 GOALS
VISION Renton: The center
of opportunity in the Puget
Sound Region where families and
businesses thrive
MISSION The City of Renton,
in partnership and communication
with residents, businesses, and
schools, is dedicated to:
Provide a safe, healthy, vibrant
community
Promote economic vitality and
strategically position Renton for the
future
Support planned growth and influence
decisions to foster environmental
sustainability
Build an inclusive informed city with
equitable outcomes for all in support of
social, economical, and racial justice
Meet service demands provide high
quality customer service
Provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community
Promote safety, health, and security through
effective communication and service delivery
Facilitate successful neighborhoods through
community involvement
Encourage and partner in the development
of quality housing choices for people of all ages
and income levels
Promote a walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly city with complete streets, trails, and
connections between neighborhoods and
community focal points
Provide opportunities for communities to be
better prepared for emergencies
Promote economic vitality and strategically
position Renton for the future
Promote Renton as the progressive,
opportunity-rich city in the Puget Sound
region
Capitalize on opportunities through bold
and creative economic development strategies
Recruit and retain businesses to ensure a
dynamic, diversified employment base
Nurture entrepreneurship and foster
successful partnerships with businesses and
community leaders
Leverage public/private resources to focus
development on economic centers
Support planned growth and influence
decisions to foster environmental
sustainability
Foster development of vibrant, sustainable,
attractive, mixed-use neighborhoods in urban
centers
Uphold a high standard of design and
property maintenance
Advocate Renton’s interests through
state and federal lobbying efforts, regional
partnerships and other organizations
Pursue transportation and other regional
improvements and services that improve
quality of life
Assume a crucial role in improving our
community’s health and environmental
resiliency for future generations
Pursue initiatives to increase mobility,
promote clean energy in our existing buildings
and in new development, preserve and expand
open spaces and tree coverage, and other
efforts to reduce CO2 and greenhouse gas
emissions
Build an inclusive informed city with
equitable outcomes for all in support of
social, economical, and racial justice
Achieve equitable outcomes by eliminating
racial and social barriers in internal practices,
city programs, services, and policies such as
hiring and contracting
Improve access to city services, programs
and employment, provide opportunities
and eradicate disparities for residents and
businesses
Promote understanding and appreciation of
our diversity through celebrations, educational
forums and festivals
Seek out opportunities for ongoing two-way
dialogue with ALL communities, engage those
historically marginalized, and ensure that we
listen and take action on what we learn.
Build capacity within the city to implement
inclusion and equity by providing the
knowledge, skills, awareness, and tools to
integrate inclusion into daily work
Meet service demands and provide high
quality customer service
Plan, develop, and maintain quality services,
infrastructure, and amenities
Prioritize services at levels that can be
sustained by revenue
Retain a skilled workforce by making Renton
the municipal employer of choice
Develop and maintain collaborative
partnerships and investment strategies that
improve services
Respond to growing service demands
through partnerships, innovation, and outcome
management
EXHIBIT A AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY
OF RENTON FISCAL YEARS 2019/2020 BIENNIAL BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 5898, IN THE AMOUNT OF $(11,881,437).
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5898 adopting
the City of Renton’s 2019/2020 Biennial Budget; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2019, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5924 carrying forward
funds appropriated in 2018, but not expended in 2018 due to capital project interruptions and
delays in invoice payments, which needed to be carried forward and appropriated for
expenditure in 2019, which required an adjustment to the 2019/2020 Biennial Budget; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2019, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5930 making minor
corrections and recognizing grants, contributions and associated costs and new cost items not
previously included in the budget, which required additional adjustments to the 2019/2020
Biennial Budget; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5930 also adopted amended job classifications and pay ranges
for City employees for 2019; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2019, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5939, providing a
mid-biennial review pursuant to Chapter 35A.34 RCW, renaming the 1% For Arts Fund 125 to
Municipal Arts Fund 125, and adopting amended job classifications and pay ranges for City
employees for 2019/2020; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2020, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5969 carrying forward
funds appropriated in 2019, but not expended in 2019 due to capital project interruptions and
delays in invoice payments, which needed to be carried forward and appropriated for
expenditure in 2020; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5969 also created the following new funds: Economic
Development Reserve Fund 098, Police Seizure Fund 140, Police CSAM Seizure Fund 141, REET 1
Fund 308, and REET 2 Fund 309, to better track the resources and costs of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the City of Renton’s 2019/2020 Biennial Budget to
adjust for budget reductions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, minor corrections and the recognition of grants, contributions and associated
costs, additional fund transfers, and new cost items not previously included in the budget require
additional adjustments to the 2019/2020 Biennial Budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. To adjust for budget reductions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
make minor corrections and recognize grants, contributions and associated costs, make
additional fund transfers, and include new items not previously included in the budget,
Ordinance Nos. 5898, 5924, 5930, 5939, and 5969 establishing the City of Renton’s 2019/2020
Biennial Budget are hereby amended in the total amount of $(11,881,437) for an amended total
of $833,690,676 over the biennium.
SECTION II. The City Council hereby adopts the amended 2019/2020 Biennial Budget.
The 2020 2nd Quarter Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund is attached as Exhibit A and the 2019
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund is attached as Exhibit B. Detailed lists of adjustments are
available for public review in the Office of the City Clerk, Renton City Hall.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication
of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this
ordinance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2020.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _______________________, 2020.
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:2111:6/22/2020
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. _______
4
Exhibit A: 2020 2nd Quarter Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE
Fund 2020 Beg Fund
Bal Changes 2020 Adj.
Fund Bal
2020
Budgeted
Revenue
Changes 2020 Adjusted
Revenue
2020
Budgeted
Expenditure
Changes 2020 Adjusted
Expenditure
Ending Fund
Balance
Reserved/
Designated
Available
Fund Balance
0XX GENERAL FUND 48,056,982 - 48,056,982 125,971,723 5,195,622 131,167,345 134,629,020 (10,466,397) 124,162,622 55,061,705 (11,997,443) 43,064,262
102 ARTERIAL STREETS - - - - - - - - - - -
110 SPECIAL HOTEL-MOTEL TAX 943,889 - 943,889 200,000 - 200,000 429,062 37,500 466,562 677,327 677,327
125 MUNICIPAL ARTS 98,865 - 98,865 180,660 - 180,660 253,790 18,000 271,790 7,735 7,735
127 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 603,760 - 603,760 97,674 - 97,674 97,674 - 97,674 603,760 603,760
135 SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK 345,658 - 345,658 - - - - - - 345,658 345,658
140 POLICE SEIZURE - - - 671,102 40,000 711,102 - 711,102 711,102 - -
141 POLICE CSAM SEIZURE - - - 126,011 - 126,011 - 126,011 126,011 - -
215 GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 3,999,457 - 3,999,456 8,143,007 - 8,143,007 7,162,386 - 7,162,386 4,980,077 (2,717,575) 2,262,502
303 COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION 1,886,999 - 1,886,999 86,500 - 86,500 1,202,364 (256,455) 945,909 1,027,590 1,027,590
305 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION 2,942,344 - 2,942,344 1,435,875 - 1,435,875 2,500,656 (688,669) 1,811,987 2,566,233 2,566,233
308 REET 1 - - - 3,143,855 - 3,143,855 1,775,000 - 1,775,000 1,368,855 1,368,855
309 REET 2 - - - 3,143,855 - 3,143,855 1,775,000 - 1,775,000 1,368,855 1,368,855
316 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP 26,395,567 - 26,395,567 7,970,026 (1,089,455) 6,880,571 30,575,902 1,595,161 32,171,063 1,105,076 1,105,076
317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 18,947,853 - 18,947,853 27,739,809 (611,469) 27,128,339 46,419,080 (1,120,312) 45,298,768 777,424 777,424
326 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY/ECO DEV REVOLVING 2,570,350 - 2,570,350 6,309 - 6,309 2,576,659 - 2,576,659 - -
336 NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 16,408 - 16,408 - - - - - - 16,408 16,408
346 NEW FAMILY FIRST CENTER DEVELOPMENT 8,551,401 - 8,551,401 75,000 - 75,000 648,948 - 648,948 7,977,453 7,977,453
402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS & CIP 6,259,402 - 6,259,402 3,051,767 - 3,051,767 8,097,828 (249,404) 7,848,424 1,462,745 (185,119) 1,277,626
403 SOLID WASTE UTILITY 2,266,127 - 2,266,127 19,616,816 - 19,616,816 19,476,649 (109,566) 19,367,083 2,515,861 (400,000) 2,115,861
404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEM & CAPITAL 173,750 - 173,750 2,872,920 - 2,872,920 2,650,253 (173,570) 2,476,682 569,988 (601,171) (31,183)
405 WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 37,569,067 - 37,569,067 19,516,652 - 19,516,652 50,487,098 (546,587) 49,940,511 7,145,208 (1,519,861) 5,625,346
406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 19,832,351 - 19,832,351 11,630,784 - 11,630,784 26,039,906 (239,556) 25,800,350 5,662,785 (812,562) 4,850,223
407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 18,377,556 - 18,377,556 25,542,717 - 25,542,717 31,567,984 (431,882) 31,136,102 12,784,170 (954,204) 11,829,966
416 KING COUNTY METRO 5,961,906 - 5,961,906 17,007,226 - 17,007,226 17,007,226 - 17,007,226 5,961,906 5,961,906
501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 6,851,811 - 6,851,811 5,662,319 (2,062,605) 3,599,714 6,954,176 (2,138,977) 4,815,199 5,636,326 5,636,326
502 INSURANCE 19,095,508 - 19,095,508 3,390,962 (19,456) 3,371,506 4,249,334 3,580,544 7,829,878 14,637,136 (14,246,164) 390,972
503 INFORMATION SERVICES 4,490,062 - 4,490,062 5,927,868 (418,000) 5,509,868 8,076,416 (441,000) 7,635,416 2,364,515 2,364,515
504 FACILITIES 1,220,276 - 1,220,276 5,328,266 (1,014,615) 4,313,651 6,102,750 (1,023,189) 5,079,561 454,367 454,367
505 COMMUNICATIONS 803,561 - 803,561 1,214,441 (37,315) 1,177,126 1,300,852 (37,315) 1,263,537 717,150 717,150
512 HEALTHCARE INSURANCE 5,151,648 - 5,151,648 12,649,694 - 12,649,694 12,526,781 (26,876) 12,499,905 5,301,437 (3,749,972) 1,551,465
522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 15,799,729 - 15,799,729 1,244,462 (1,000,000) 244,462 1,248,243 - 1,248,243 14,795,948 (14,795,948) -
304 FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION 2,120,558 - 2,120,558 99,000 - 99,000 113,808 - 113,808 2,105,750 (2,105,750) -
611 FIREMENS PENSION 7,565,902 - 7,565,902 468,000 - 468,000 200,475 - 200,475 7,833,427 (7,833,427) -
Total Other Funds 220,841,765 - 220,841,765 188,243,577 (6,212,915) 182,030,662 291,516,298 (1,415,040) 290,101,258 112,771,168 (49,921,751) 62,849,417
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 268,898,747 - 268,898,747 314,215,300 (1,017,293) 313,198,007 426,145,318 (11,881,437) 414,263,881 167,832,873 (61,919,194) 105,913,679
2 year total 645,182,269 (1,017,293) 644,164,976 845,572,113 (11,881,437) 833,690,676 167,832,873 (61,919,194) 105,913,679 AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
Exhibit B: 2019 Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE
Fund 2019 Beg
Fund Bal Changes 2019 Adj
Fund Bal
2019
Budgeted Changes 2019
Adjusted
2019
Budgeted Changes 2019
Adjusted
Ending Fund
Balance
Reserved/
Designated
Available
Fund
Balance
0XX GENERAL FUND 44,542,987 - 44,542,987 125,561,221 - 125,561,221 133,793,547 - 133,793,547 36,310,660 (11,374,240) 24,936,420
102 ARTERIAL STREETS 163,671 - 163,671 103,365 - 103,365 267,036 - 267,036 - -
110 SPECIAL HOTEL-MOTEL TAX 722,387 - 722,387 225,000 - 225,000 444,647 - 444,647 502,740 502,740
125 MUNICIPAL ARTS 119,446 - 119,446 102,000 - 102,000 204,683 - 204,683 16,764 16,764
127 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 529,159 - 529,159 97,674 - 97,674 105,674 - 105,674 521,159 521,159
135 SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK 340,895 - 340,895 - - - - - - 340,895 340,895
215 GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 2,307,173 - 2,307,173 8,444,717 - 8,444,717 7,914,936 - 7,914,936 2,836,954 (2,717,575) 119,379
303 COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION 2,578,256 - 2,578,256 86,500 - 86,500 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 1,464,756 1,464,756
305 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION 3,332,524 - 3,332,524 1,020,000 - 1,020,000 2,324,200 - 2,324,200 2,028,324 2,028,324
316 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP 20,675,238 - 20,675,238 20,470,370 - 20,470,370 39,952,505 - 39,952,505 1,193,102 1,193,102
317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 5,492,313 - 5,492,313 40,114,969 - 40,114,969 43,712,273 - 43,712,273 1,895,009 1,895,009
326 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY/ECO DEV REVOLVING 2,582,203 - 2,582,203 21,500 - 21,500 68,900 - 68,900 2,534,803 (2,500,000) 34,803
336 NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 456,591 - 456,591 - - - 445,591 - 445,591 11,000 11,000
346 NEW FAMILY FIRST CENTER DEVELOPMENT 4,193,806 - 4,193,806 5,075,000 - 5,075,000 1,389,638 - 1,389,638 7,879,168 7,879,168
402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS & CIP 4,985,377 - 4,985,377 3,298,685 - 3,298,685 7,912,888 - 7,912,888 371,174 (181,653) 189,521
403 SOLID WASTE UTILITY 2,276,333 - 2,276,333 19,512,021 - 19,512,021 19,403,677 - 19,403,677 2,384,676 (400,000) 1,984,676
404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEM & CAPITAL 110,812 - 110,812 2,447,340 - 2,447,340 2,354,233 - 2,354,233 203,919 (468,149) (264,230)
405 WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 38,002,973 - - 18,841,192 - 18,841,192 48,784,107 - 48,784,107 8,060,058 (3,033,114) 5,026,944
406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 18,879,201 - 18,879,201 11,582,615 - 11,582,615 24,728,976 - 24,728,976 5,732,840 (1,862,878) 3,869,962
407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 16,356,030 - 16,356,030 20,608,113 - 20,608,113 26,628,203 - 26,628,203 10,335,940 (1,231,544) 9,104,396
416 KING COUNTY METRO 5,512,418 - 5,512,418 16,922,613 - 16,922,613 16,922,613 - 16,922,613 5,512,418 5,512,418
501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 6,493,018 - 6,493,018 7,705,395 - 7,705,395 9,249,649 - 9,249,649 4,948,764 4,948,764
502 INSURANCE 18,522,154 - 18,522,154 3,343,143 - 3,343,143 4,216,235 - 4,216,235 17,649,063 (15,874,475) 1,774,588
503 INFORMATION SERVICES 3,934,408 - 3,934,408 6,122,843 - 6,122,843 7,758,840 - 7,758,840 2,298,411 2,298,411
504 FACILITIES 1,376,859 - 1,376,859 5,318,843 - 5,318,843 5,538,128 - 5,538,128 1,157,574 1,157,574
505 COMMUNICATIONS 685,593 - 685,593 1,105,816 - 1,105,816 1,132,460 - 1,132,460 658,949 658,949
512 HEALTHCARE INSURANCE 4,259,511 - 4,259,511 11,027,762 - 11,027,762 11,655,841 - 11,655,841 3,631,432 (3,496,752) 134,680
522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 13,876,628 - 13,876,628 1,241,273 - 1,241,273 978,262 - 978,262 14,139,639 (14,139,639) -
304 FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION 1,455,669 - 1,455,669 99,000 - 99,000 128,576 - 128,576 1,426,093 1,426,093
611 FIREMENS PENSION 7,146,983 - 7,146,983 468,000 - 468,000 210,475 - 210,475 7,404,508 (7,404,508) -
Total Other Funds 187,367,629 - 187,367,629 205,405,748 - 205,405,748 285,633,247 - 285,633,247 107,140,130 (53,310,287) 53,829,843
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 231,910,616 - 231,910,616 330,966,969 - 330,966,969 419,426,795 - 419,426,795 143,450,790 (64,684,527) 78,766,263 AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS 4-3-050.C.3; 4-3-050.C.4; 4-3-050.G.6.a; 4-3-090.A; 4-3-090.B.3; 4-
3-090.C.3.b; 4-3-090.C.4.b; 4-3-090.D.1; 4-3-090.D.2.c; 4-3-090.D.2.d; 4-3-
090.D.3.b; 4-3-090.D.5; 4-3-090.D.6.d; 4-3-090.D.7.a; 4-3-090.D.7.d; 4-3-090.D.8;
4-3-090.E.1; 4-3-090.E.4.a; 4-3-090.E.5.a.iv(b)(2); 4-3-090.E.7.b.ii(a); 4-3-
090.E.10.e.ii(b); 4-3-090.E.10.e.iii(c); 4-3-090.E.11.a.x; 4-3-090.E.11.d.i(d); 4-3-
090.E.11.d.iv; 4-3-090.F.1; 4-3-090.F.4.a.vi; 4-3-090.F.6.k; 4-4-130.C.9; 4-4-
130.D.3.a.iii; 4-9-070.H.2; 4-9-190.B; 4-9-190.C; 4-9-190.D; 4-9-190.E; 4-9-190.H;
4-9-190.I; 4-9-190.J.11; 4-9-190.M; 4-9-190.O; 4-9-195.D.4.h; AND 4-9-195.D.5;
SECTION 4-10-095; AND THE DEFINITION OF "BUFFER, SHORELINES" IN SECTION
4-11-020; THE DEFINITIONS OF "DEVELOPABLE AREA" AND "DEVELOPMENT" IN
SECTION 4-11-040; THE DEFINITION OF "FLOODWAY" IN SECTION 4-11-060; THE
DEFINITION OF "LOT MEASUREMENTS" IN SECTION 4-11-120; AND THE
DEFINITION (FOR RMC 4-3-090, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS,
USE ONLY) OF "SETBACK" IN SECTION 4-11-190, OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL
CODE, AMENDING THE CITY'S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation
and study, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, on September 6, 2018, the City notified the
State of Washington of its intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2018,
considered all relevant matters, and heard all parties in support or opposition, and subsequently
forwarded a recommendation to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. All portions of the Renton Municipal Code in this ordinance not shown in
strikethrough and underline edits remain in effect and unchanged.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
SECTION II. The following Renton Municipal Code sections, subsections, and
definitions are amended as shown on Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated as if fully set
forth herein:
4-3-050.C.3;
4-3-050.C.4;
4-3-050.G.6.a;
4-3-090.A;
4-3-090.B.3;
4-3-090.C.3.b;
4-3-090.C.4.b;
4-3-090.D.1;
4-3-090.D.2.c;
4-3-090.D.2.d;
4-3-090.D.3.b;
4-3-090.D.5;
4-3-090.D.6.d;
4-3-090.D.7.a;
4-3-090.D.7.d;
4-3-090.D.8;
4-3-090.E.1;
4-3-090.E.4.a;
4-3-090.E.5.a.iv(b)(2);
4-3-090.E.7.b.ii(a);
4-3-090.E.10.e.ii(b);
4-3-090.E.10.e.iii(c);
4-3-090.E.11.a.x;
4-3-090.E.11.d.i(d);
4-3-090.E.11.d.iv;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
4-3-090.F.1;
4-3-090.F.4.a.vi;
4-3-090.F.6.k;
4-4-130.C.9;
4-4-130.D.3.a.iii;
4-9-070.H.2;
4-9-190.B;
4-9-190.C;
4-9-190.D;
4-9-190.E;
4-9-190.H;
4-9-190.I;
4-9-190.J.11;
4-9-190.M;
4-9-190.O;
4-9-195.D.4.h;
4-9-195.D.5;
4-10-095;
The definition of "Buffer, Shorelines" in 4-11-020;
The definitions of "Developable Area" and "Development" in 4-11-040;
The definition of "Floodway" in 4-11-060;
The definition of "Lot Measurements" in 4-11-120; and
The definition (for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only) of
"Setback" in 4-11-190.
SECTION III. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication
of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this
ordinance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2020.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2020.
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:2059:5/28/2020
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 1
EXHIBIT A
CONTENTS
4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations: ...................................................................................................... 8
C. Exempt, Prohibited and Nonconforming Activities: ......................................................................................... 8
1. Permit Required: ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Letter of Exemption: ......................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Exemptions – Critical Areas and Buffers: ..................................................................................................... 9
4. Exemptions – In Buffers Only:....................................................................................................................... 19
5. Prohibited Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 21
6. Nonconforming Activities or Structures........................................................................................................ 23
4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations – Development Standards: .......................................................... 24
G. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: .......................................................................................................................... 24
6. Habitat Conservation Areas: ........................................................................................................................ 24
4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations: ................................................................................ 25
A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS: ....................................................................................................................................... 25
B. REGULATED SHORELINES: ................................................................................................................................. 26
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: ......................................................................................................... 26
2. Shorelines: ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
3. The Jurisdictional Area Includes: .................................................................................................................. 26
C. SHORELINES OVERLAY DISTRICTS: ................................................................................................................. 27
1. Natural Environment Overlay District: ........................................................................................................ 27
2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District: ......................................................................................................... 27
3. Single Family Residential Overlay District: ................................................................................................ 28
4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District: ................................................................................................... 28
5. Shoreline High Intensity – Isolated Lands – Overlay District: ................................................................. 29
6. Aquatic Shoreline Overlay District: ............................................................................................................. 30
D. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: ........................................................................................................ 30
1. Applicability: ................................................................................................................................................... 30
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 2
2. Environmental Effects: .................................................................................................................................... 30
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects: .................................................................................................... 48
4. Public Access: ................................................................................................................................................... 49
5. Building and Development Location – Shoreline Orientation: ................................................................ 57
6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: ................................................................................. 59
7. Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height: .......................................................................................... 60
8. Private Property Rights: ................................................................................................................................. 69
9. Treaty Rights: ................................................................................................................................................... 69
E. USE REGULATIONS: ............................................................................................................................................ 70
1. Shoreline Use Table: ...................................................................................................................................... 70
2. Aquaculture: ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
3. Boat Launching Ramps: .................................................................................................................................. 77
4. Commercial and Community Services: ........................................................................................................ 79
5. Industrial Use: .................................................................................................................................................. 81
6. Marinas: ............................................................................................................................................................ 83
7. Piers and Docks: .............................................................................................................................................. 86
8. Recreation: ....................................................................................................................................................... 96
9. Residential Development: .............................................................................................................................. 98
10. Transportation: ........................................................................................................................................... 100
11. Utilities: ........................................................................................................................................................ 105
F. SHORELINE MODIFICATION: .......................................................................................................................... 112
1. Vegetation Conservation: ........................................................................................................................... 112
2. Landfill and Excavation: ............................................................................................................................. 123
3. Dredging: ...................................................................................................................................................... 125
4. Shoreline Stabilization: ............................................................................................................................... 129
5. Flood Control: ............................................................................................................................................... 135
6. Stream Alteration: ....................................................................................................................................... 136
4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations: .................................................................. 138
C. ALLOWED TREE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES:....................................................................................................... 138
1. Emergency Situations: ................................................................................................................................. 138
2. Dangerous Trees: ......................................................................................................................................... 138
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 3
3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal – Public or Private Utilities, Roads and Public
Parks: .................................................................................................................................................................. 138
4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: ......................................................................... 138
5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: ......................................................................................... 138
6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: ...................................................................................................... 138
7. Public Road Expansion: ............................................................................................................................... 138
8. Site Investigative Work: ............................................................................................................................. 138
9. Minor Tree Removal Activities: .................................................................................................................. 139
10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: ................................................................................................. 140
11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: ............................................................................................................ 141
12. Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways within Existing, Improved Rights-of-Way or ..... 141
13. Land Development Permit Required: ..................................................................................................... 141
D. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: ................................................................................................................................. 141
1. Tree Cutting in Advance of Issuance of Land Development Permit: ................................................... 141
2. Tree Cutting or Vegetation Management without Required Routine Vegetation Management
Permit: ................................................................................................................................................................. 141
3. Restrictions for Critical Areas – General: ............................................................................................... 141
4. Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas: .................................................................................. 142
5. Tree Topping: ............................................................................................................................................... 142
6. Removal of Landmark Tree: ...................................................................................................................... 142
4-9-070 Environmental Review Procedures: ..................................................................................... 143
4-9-190 Shoreline Permits: ................................................................................................................ 145
A. PURPOSE: .......................................................................................................................................................... 145
B. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: ..................................................................................................... 145
1. Development Compliance: ......................................................................................................................... 145
2. Shoreline Overlay: ...................................................................................................................................... 145
3. Substantial Development Permit: .............................................................................................................. 145
4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit:............................................................................................................. 146
5. Shoreline Variance: ..................................................................................................................................... 146
6. Land Division: ................................................................................................................................................ 146
7. Approval Criteria: ....................................................................................................................................... 146
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 4
8. Written Findings Required: ........................................................................................................................ 147
9. Building Permit Compliance: ...................................................................................................................... 147
10. Restoration Project Relief: ....................................................................................................................... 147
C. EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM: ......................................................................................................... 149
1. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 149
D. EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PROCEDURES: .................................................................................................... 155
1. Application Required: ................................................................................................................................. 155
2. Consistency Required: ................................................................................................................................. 155
3. Conditions Authorized: ................................................................................................................................ 155
4. Permit Required if Project Not Exempt in Part: ...................................................................................... 155
E. SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES: ..................................................................................... 155
1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application:........... 155
2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: ........................................................................... 156
3. Shoreline Substantial Development .......................................................................................................... 156
4. Secondary Review by Independent Qualified Professionals: ............................................................. 156
5. Public Notice: ................................................................................................................................................ 156
6. Standard Public Comment Time: ............................................................................................................... 157
7. Special Public Comment Time: ................................................................................................................... 157
8. Review Guidelines: ...................................................................................................................................... 157
9. Conditional Approval: ................................................................................................................................ 157
10. Notification: ................................................................................................................................................ 157
F. REVIEW CRITERIA: ............................................................................................................................................ 157
1. General: ........................................................................................................................................................ 157
2. Additional Information: ............................................................................................................................... 158
3. Procedural Amendments: ............................................................................................................................ 158
4. Burden of Proof on Applicant:................................................................................................................... 158
G. SURETY DEVICES: ............................................................................................................................................ 158
H. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS: ........................................................................................................................... 158
I. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES: ....................................................................................................... 159
1. Purpose: ......................................................................................................................................................... 159
2. Authority: ....................................................................................................................................................... 159
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 5
a. Conditional Use Permits: ............................................................................................................................. 159
b. Variances: ..................................................................................................................................................... 159
c. State Department of Ecology Decision: .................................................................................................... 159
d. Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: ............................................................................................... 159
3. Maintenance of Permitted Uses Allowed: ............................................................................................... 160
4. Variances: ..................................................................................................................................................... 160
5. Conditional Use: ........................................................................................................................................... 162
J. TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE PERMITS: ....................................................................................... 163
1. Applicability: ................................................................................................................................................ 163
2. Unspecified Time Limits: .............................................................................................................................. 163
3. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Substantial Developments: .................................................... 163
4. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Conditional Uses or Shoreline Variances: .......................... 163
5. Extension Requests: ...................................................................................................................................... 164
6. Standard Period of Validity:..................................................................................................................... 164
7. Certification of Construction Commencement: ........................................................................................ 164
8. Time Allowed for Construction Completion: ............................................................................................ 164
9. Effective Date of Filing: .............................................................................................................................. 164
10. Notification to City of Other Permits and Legal Actions: .................................................................. 165
11. Permit Processing Time: ............................................................................................................................ 165
12. Construction Not Authorized Until Proceedings Completed: ............................................................. 165
13. Special Allowance for Construction: ...................................................................................................... 165
K. RULINGS TO STATE: ........................................................................................................................................ 165
L. TRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT: ........................................................................................................................ 166
M. ENFORCEMENT: ............................................................................................................................................... 166
N. RESCISSION OF PERMITS: .............................................................................................................................. 166
1. Noncompliance with Permit: ....................................................................................................................... 166
2. Notice of Noncompliance: .......................................................................................................................... 166
3. Posting: .......................................................................................................................................................... 166
4. Public Hearing: ............................................................................................................................................. 166
5. Final Decision: ............................................................................................................................................... 166
O. APPEALS: ........................................................................................................................................................... 166
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 6
P. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: ...................................................................................................................... 167
1. Prosecution: ................................................................................................................................................... 167
2. Injunction: ....................................................................................................................................................... 167
3. Violators Liable for Damages: .................................................................................................................. 167
Q. SHORELINE MORATORIUM: .......................................................................................................................... 167
4-9-195 Routine Vegetation Management Permits ........................................................................... 169
A. PURPOSE: .......................................................................................................................................................... 169
B. AUTHORITY:....................................................................................................................................................... 169
C. APPLICABILITY: ................................................................................................................................................. 169
D. PROCEDURES AND REVIEW CRITERIA: ........................................................................................................ 169
1. Submittal: ...................................................................................................................................................... 169
2. Information Required: ................................................................................................................................. 169
3. Time: ............................................................................................................................................................... 169
4. Review Criteria: ........................................................................................................................................... 169
5. Routine Vegetation Management Permit Conditions: ........................................................................... 170
6. Time Limits for Routine Vegetation Management Permits: ................................................................... 171
E. APPEALS: ............................................................................................................................................................ 171
F. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: ....................................................................................................................... 171
4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites ........... 172
A. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: ............................................................................................................. 172
B. NONCONFORMING USES: ............................................................................................................................ 172
C. NONCONFORMING SITE: ............................................................................................................................. 172
D. PRE-EXISTING LEGAL LOT: RESERVED. ........................................................................................................ 172
E. CONTINUATION OF USE: ............................................................................................................................... 172
F. PARTIAL AND FULL COMPLIANCE, ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE OR SITE: ................ 173
1. Partial Compliance for Non-Single -Family Development: .................................................................. 173
2. Partial Compliance for Single Family Development: ............................................................................ 177
*The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090.D.7.a, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as
modified under RMC 4-3-090.F.1, Vegetation Conservation. ................................................................ 179
4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B:.................................................................................................................. 180
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 7
4-11-040 Definitions D: ..................................................................................................................... 180
DEVELOPMENT: ................................................................................................................................................ 180
4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F: .................................................................................................................. 180
4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L: .................................................................................................................. 181
4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S: .................................................................................................................. 182
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 8
4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS:
C. EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES:
1. Permit Required:
a. Development or Alteration: Prior to any development or alteration of a property containing a
critical area as defined in subsection B of this Section, entitled Applicability, the owner or designee
must obtain a development permit, critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption. No separate
critical area permit is required for a development proposal which requires development permits or
which has received a letter of exemption.
b. Operating and Closure Permits – Wellhead Protection Areas: Wellhead Protection Areas
operating permit and closure permit requirements are contained in RMC 4-9-015, Aquifer Protection
Areas Permits.
2. Letter of Exemption:
a. Flood Hazard Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Habitat Conservation Areas, Streams
and Lakes, Wellhead Protection Areas, Wetlands: Except in the case of public emergencies, all
other exemptions in this subsection C may require that a letter of exemption be obtained from the
Administrator prior to construction or initiation of activities.
b. Applicability of Requirements to Exempt Activities: Exempt activities provided with a letter of
exemption may intrude into the critical area or required buffer subject to any listed conditions or
requirements. Exempt activities do not need to comply with mitigation ratios of subsection J of this
Section unless required in exemption criteria.
c. Reports and Mitigation Plans Required: A critical area report, and/or enhancement or
mitigation plan shall be required pursuant to subsections F and L of this Section, unless otherwise
waived by the Administrator.
d. Admi nistrator Findings: In determining whether to issue a letter of exemption for activities listed
in this subsection C, the Administrator shall find that:
i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or
State or Federal law or regulation;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 9
ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles;
iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored;
iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption
during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required;
v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a
significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may
require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise
relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based
upon site and/or chemical-specific data.
3. Exemptions – Critical Areas and Buffers: Exempt activities are listed in the following table. If an
“X” appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified critical area and required buffer. If an
“X” does not appear in a box, then the exemption does not apply in the particular critical area or
required buffer. Where utilized in the following table the term “restoration” means returning the subject
area back to its original state or better following the performance of the exempt activity. Activities taking
place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the following table are exempt from the
applicable provisions of this Section, provided a letter of exemption has been issued. Whether the
exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of
chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. All activities
within shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Shoreline Master Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090 and
4-10-095.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 10
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES – PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED
BUFFERS
EXEMPT ACTIVITY
Flood
Hazard
Areas
Geologic
Hazard
Area
Habitat
Conservation
Area
Streams
and
Lakes:
Type F,
Np, &
Ns
Wellhead
Protection
Areas
Wetlands
a. Conservation, Enhancement, Education and Related Activities:
i. Natural Resource/Habitat
Conservation or Preservation2 X X X X X1 X
ii. Enhancement activities as
defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC X X X X X
iii. Approved
Restoration/Mitigation3 X X X X X1 X
b. Research and Site Investigation:
i. Nondestructive Education
and Research X X X X X1 X
ii. Site Investigative Work4 X X X X X1 X
c. Agricultural, Harvesting, Vegetation Management:
i. Harvesting Wild Foods5 X X X X X1 X
ii. Existing/Ongoing Agricultural
Activities6 X X X X X
iii. Dangerous Trees7 X X X X8 X1 X8
d. Surface Water:
i. New Surface Water
Discharges9 X X X
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 11
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES – PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED
BUFFERS
EXEMPT ACTIVITY
Flood
Hazard
Areas
Geologic
Hazard
Area
Habitat
Conservation
Area
Streams
and
Lakes:
Type F,
Np, &
Ns
Wellhead
Protection
Areas
Wetlands
ii. Modification of existing
Regional Stormwater
Facilities10
X
iii. Flood Hazard Areas
Reduction11 X X
iv. Storm Drainage Piping12 X
e. Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities18:
i. Relocation of Existing Utilities
out of Critical Area and Buffer13 X X X X X1 X
ii. Maintenance, Operation, and
Repair of New trails, existing
Parks, Trails, Roads, Facilities,
and Utilities – Maintenance,
Operation, Repair, and the
Construction of New Trails14
X X X X
iii. Utilities, Traffic Control,
Walkways, Bikeways Within
Existing, Improved Right-of-
Way or Easements15
X X X X
iv. Modification of Existing
Utilities and Streets by Ten
Percent (10%) or Less16
X X17 X17
f. Temporary Wetland Impacts:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 12
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES – PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED
BUFFERS
EXEMPT ACTIVITY
Flood
Hazard
Areas
Geologic
Hazard
Area
Habitat
Conservation
Area
Streams
and
Lakes:
Type F,
Np, &
Ns
Wellhead
Protection
Areas
Wetlands
i. Temporary Wetland
Impacts19 X X
g. Maintenance and Construction – Existing Uses and Facilities:
i. Remodeling, Replacing,
Removing Existing Structures,
Facilities, and Improvements20
X X X X
ii. Maintenance and Repair –
Any Existing Public or Private
Use21
X X X X
iii. Modification of an Existing
Single Family Dwelling22 X X X X
iv. Existing Activities23 X X X X X
h. Emergency Activities:
i. Emergency Activities24, 25, 26,
27 X X X X X1 X
i. Hazardous Materials:
i. Federal or State
Preemption28 X1
ii. Use of Materials with No
Risk29 X1
Footnotes:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 13
1. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a
significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may
require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise
relevant to that hazardous material activity and/or facility.
2. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish and other wildlife. Within shoreline
jurisdiction this includes watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o) or
projects to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage approved by the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife as described in WAC 173-27-040(2)(p).
3. Any critical area and/or buffer restoration or other mitigation activities which have been
approved by the City. Within shoreline jurisdiction this includes watershed restoration projects as
defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o) or projects to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage
approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as described in WAC 173-27-
040(2)(p).
4. Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs,
percolation tests and other related activities. Investigative work shall not disturb any more than five
percent (5%) of the critical area and required buffer. In every case, impacts shall be minimized and
disturbed areas shall be immediately restored at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio. Within shoreline
jurisdiction, this includes the marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such
marking does not significantly interfere with the normal public use of the surface water. Limitations
on site exploration and investigative activities are defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(m) for properties
within shoreline jurisdiction.
5. The harvesting of wild foods in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such
foods and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops or alteration of
the critical area.
6. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities including farming, horticulture, aquaculture and/or
maintenance of existing irrigation systems. Activities on areas lying fallow as part of a conventional
rotational cycle are part of an ongoing operation; provided, that the agricultural activity must have
been conducted within the last five (5) years. Activities that bring a critical area into agricultural use
are not part of an ongoing operation. Maintenance of existing legally installed irrigation, ditch and
pipe systems is allowed; new or expanded irrigation, ditch, outfall or other systems are not exempt.
If it is necessary to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices to critical areas, a farm management
plan may be required based on the King County Conservation District’s Farm Conservation and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 14
Practice Standards, or other best management practices. Within shoreline jurisdiction practices
normal or necessary for farming are defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(e).
7. Removal of non-native invasive ground cover or weeds listed by King County Noxious Weed
Board or other government agency or dangerous trees, as defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC which
have been approved by the City and certified dangerous by a licensed landscape architect, or
certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on the type of information
required.
8. Limited to cutting of dangerous trees; such hazardous trees shall be retained as large woody
debris in critical areas and/or associated buffers, where feasible.
9. New surface water discharges in the form of dispersion trenches, outfalls and bioswales are
allowed within the outer twenty five percent (25%) of the buffer of a Category III or IV wetland only
provided that: the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm and Surface Water Drainage
Regulations Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030); no other location is feasible; and
will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland or stream. Where differences exist between
these regulations and RMC 4-6-030, these regulations will take precedence.
10. Modifications to existing regional stormwater management facilities operated and maintained
under the direction of the City Surface Water Utility that are designed consistent with the current
version of the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands and Stormwater Management
Guidelines Manual or meeting equivalent objectives.
11. Implementation of public flood hazard areas reduction and public surface water projects,
where habitat enhancement and restoration at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio are provided, and
appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received.
12. Installation of new storm drainage lines in any geologic hazard area when a geotechnical
report clearly demonstrates that the installation would comply with the criteria listed in RMC 4-3-
050.J.1 and that the installation would be consistent with each of the purposes of the critical area
regulations listed in RMC 4-3-050.A. Also, to qualify for the exemption, the report must propose
appropriate mitigation for any potential impacts identified in the report.
13. Relocation out of critical areas and required buffers of natural gas, cable, communication,
telephone and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment and appurtenances (not including
substations), with an associated voltage of fifty five thousand (55,000) volts or less, only when
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 15
required by a local governmental agency, and with the approval of the City. Disturbed areas shall
be restored.
14. Normal and routine maintenance, operation and repair of existing parks, and trails, or the
construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way and associated appurtenances, facilities and
utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed other than the minimum
alteration and/or fill needed to restore those facilities or to construct new trails to meet established
safety standards. The use of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to utilities and public
agencies that require this type of equipment for normal and routine maintenance and repair of
existing utility structures and rights-of-way. In every case, critical area and required buffer impacts
shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be restored during and immediately after the use of
construction equipment.
15. Within existing and improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation,
construction, replacement, operation, overbuilding or alteration of all natural gas, cable,
communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances,
traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing
improved area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply. Where applicable,
restoration of disturbed areas shall be completed. Within shoreline jurisdiction the exemption also
applies to any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
16. Overbuilding (enlargement beyond existing project needs) or replacement of existing utility
systems and replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets, provided:
a. The work does not increase the footprint of the structure, line or street by more than ten
percent (10%) within the critical area and/or buffer areas, and occurs in the existing right-of-way
boundary or easement boundary.
b. Restoration shall be conducted where feasible. Compensation for impacts to buffers shall
include enhancement of the remaining buffer area along the impacted area where there is
enhancement opportunity.
c. The Administrator determines that, based on best judgment, a person would not: (i) be able
to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (ii) expect discountable
effects to occur.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 16
d. This exemption allows for ten percent (10%) maximum expansion total, life of the project.
After the ten percent (10%) expansion cap is reached, future improvements are subject to all
applicable provisions of this Section.
17. Exemption is not allowed in Category I wetlands.
18. Maintenance activities, including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal,
and removal of non-native invasive vegetation or weeds listed by the King County Noxious Weed
Board or other government agency, for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and
easements, and parks.
19. Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include
permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the
critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a one-to-one (1:1)
ratio. Category I wetlands and Category II forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a two-to-one
(2:1) ratio in addition to being restored. For Habitat Conservation Areas, this exemption applies only
to Category I wetlands.
20. Remodeling, restoring, replacing or removing structures, facilities and other improvements in
existence or vested on the date this Section becomes effective and that do not meet the setback or
buffer requirements of this Section provided the work complies with the criteria in RMC 4-10-090.
21. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private uses and facilities
where no alteration of the critical area and required buffer or additional fill materials will be placed.
The use of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to utilities and public agencies that require
this type of equipment for normal and routine maintenance and repair of existing utility or public
structures and rights-of-way. In every case, critical area and required buffer impacts shall be
minimized and disturbed areas shall be restored during and immediately after the use of
construction equipment. Normal maintenance and repair for structures within shoreline jurisdiction
is defined by WAC 173-27-040(2)(b).
22. Additions and alterations of an existing single family residence and/or garage (attached or
detached); provided, that the addition/alteration does not increase the footprint of the structure lying
within the critical area or buffer; and provided, that no portion of the addition/alteration occurs closer
to the critical area or required buffers than the existing structure unless the structure or addition can
meet required buffers. Existing or rebuilt accessory structures associated with single family dwelling
and rebuilt with the same footprint such as fences, gazebos, storage sheds, and play houses are
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 17
exempt from this Section. New accessory structures may be allowed when associated with single
family dwellings such as fences, gazebos, storage sheds, play houses and when built on and
located in a previously legally altered area.
23. Existing activities which have not been changed, expanded or altered, provided they comply
with the applicable requirements of chapter 4-10 RMC.
24. Emergency activities are those which are undertaken to correct emergencies that threaten the
public health, safety and welfare. An emergency means that an action must be undertaken
immediately or within a time frame too short to allow full compliance with this Section, to avoid an
immediate threat to public health or safety, to prevent an imminent danger to public or private
property, or to prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. Within shoreline
jurisdiction, emergency activities are defined by WAC 173-27-040(2)(d).
25. Emergency tree and/or ground cover removal by any City department or agency and/or public
or private utility involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
26. Emergency activities in Wellhead Protection Areas: Public interest emergency use, storage,
and handling of hazardous materials by governmental organizations.
27. Temporary emergency exemptions shall be used only in extreme cases and not to justify poor
planning by an agency or applicant. Issuance of an emergency permit by the City does not preclude
the necessity to obtain necessary approvals from appropriate Federal and State authorities.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section or any other City laws to the contrary, the
Administrator may issue a temporary emergency exemption letter if the action meets the
requirements:
a. An unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property will occur if an emergency permit is
not granted;
b. The anticipated threat or loss may occur before a permit can be issued or modified under
the procedures otherwise required by this Section and other applicable laws;
c. Any emergency exemption letter granted shall incorporate, to the greatest extent
practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the standards and
criteria required for nonemergency activities under this Section.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 18
d. The emergency exemption shall be consistent with the following procedural and time
requirements:
i.a. The emergency shall be limited in duration to the time required to complete the
authorized emergency activity; provided, that no emergency permit be granted for a period
exceeding ninety (90) days except as specified in RMC 4-3-050C.
ii.b. Any critical area altered as a result of the emergency activity must be restored within
the ninety (90) day period, except that if more than ninety (90) days from the issuance of the
emergency permit is required to complete restoration, the emergency permit may be
extended to complete this restoration. For the purposes of this paragraph, restoration means
returning the affected area to its state prior to the performance of the emergency activity.
iii.c. Notice of the issuance of the emergency permit and request for public comments shall
be posted at the affected site(s) and City Hall no later than ten (10) days after the issuance
of the emergency permit. If significant comments are received, the City may reconsider the
permit.
iv.d. Expiration of Exemption Authorization: The emergency exemption authorization may
be terminated at any time without process upon a determination by the Administrator that
the action was not or is no longer necessary to protect human health or the environment.
28. Cleanups, monitoring and/or studies undertaken under supervision of the Washington
Department of Ecology or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
29. Use, storage, and handling of specific hazardous materials that do not present a risk to the
aquifer as determined and listed by the Department.
30. Normal protective bulkhead is defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(c).
31. The construction of docks are defined and limited by WAC 173-27-040(2)(h).
32. The operation, maintenance, or construction of facilities as part of an irrigation system are
defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(i).
33. Limitations on the removal and control of aquatic noxious weeks is defined in WAC 173-27-
040(2)(n).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 19
4. Exemptions – In Buffers Only: The activities listed in the following table are allowed within critical
area buffers, and are exempt from the applicable provisions of this Section, provided a letter of
exemption has been issued pursuant to this subsection C. If an “X” appears in a box, the listed
exemption applies in the specified buffer. If an “X” does not appear in a box, then the exemption does
not apply in the required buffer. Whether the exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be
determined based upon application of chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the
Renton Municipal Code. All activities within shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Shoreline Master
Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090 and 4-10-095.
EXEMPTIONS WITHIN CRITICAL AREA BUFFERS
EXEMPT ACTIVITY
Flood
Hazard
Areas
Geologic
Hazard
Area
Habitat
Conservation
Areas
Streams
and
Lakes:
Types
F, Np, &
Ns
Wellhead
Protection
Areas
Wetlands
a. Activities in Critical Area Buffers:
i. Trails and Open Space1 X X X X
ii. Stormwater Treatment and
Flow Control Facilities in
Buffer2
X
iii. Stormwater Conveyance in
Buffer3 X X X
Footnotes:
1. Walkways and trails, and associated open space in critical area buffers located on public
property, or where easements or agreements have been granted for such purposes on private
property. All of the following criteria shall be met:
a. The trail, walkway, and associated open space shall be consistent with the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. The City may allow private trails as part of the approval of
a site plan, subdivision or other land use permit approvals.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 20
b. Trails and walkways shall be located in the outer twenty five percent (25%) of the buffer,
i.e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the critical area. Exceptions to this
requirement may be made for:
i. Trail segments connecting to existing trails where an alternate alignment is not practical.
ii. Public access points to water bodies spaced periodically along the trail.
c. Enhancement of the buffer area is required where trails are located in the buffer. Where
enhancement of the buffer area abutting a trail is not feasible due to existing high quality
vegetation, additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required.
d. Trail widths shall be a maximum width of twelve feet (12'). Trails shall be constructed of
permeable materials which protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and ground
water movements, do not contribute to erosion, are located where they do not disturb nesting,
breeding, and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the removal of trees. Impervious
materials may be allowed if pavement is required for handicapped or emergency access, or
safety, or is a designated nonmotorized transportation route or makes a connection to an
already dedicated trail, or reduces potential for other environmental impacts.
e. Any crossing over a stream or wetland shall be generally perpendicular to the critical area
and shall be accomplished by bridging or other technique designed to minimize critical area
disturbance. It shall also be the minimum width necessary to accommodate the intended
function or objective.
2. Stormwater management facilities shall not be built within a critical area buffer except as
allowed in Reference 5, Wetlands Protection Guidelines of the City’s Surface Water Design Manual
and shall require buffer enhancement or buffer averaging when they are sited in areas of forest
vegetation, provided the standard buffer zone area associated with the critical area classification is
retained pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G2, and is sited to reduce impacts between the critical area and
surrounding activities.
3. Necessary conveyance systems including stormwater dispersion outfall systems designed to
minimize impacts to the buffer and critical area, where the site topography requires their location
within the buffer to allow hydraulic function, provided the standard buffer zone area associated with
the critical area classification is retained pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G2, and is sited to reduce
impacts between the critical area and surrounding activities.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 21
4. WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) defines and identifies the limitations on the construction of a single
family home and appurtenances. Single family residences and appurtenances must be located
landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. Based on the results of a
critical area report, and/or enhancement or mitigation plan, the City shall condition development to
require buffer enhancement or buffer averaging, site design that reduces impacts between the
critical area and surrounding activities, and a building setback.
5. Prohibited Activities: Prohibited activities are identified below for each critical area governed by this
Section. No action shall be taken by any person, company, agency, or applicant which results in any
alteration of a critical area except as consistent with the purpose, objectives, and requirements of this
Section.
a. Floodways: Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways,
unless it meets the provisions of subsection G4e of this Section, Additional Restrictions within
Floodways.
b. Streams/Lakes and Wetlands: Grazing of animals is not allowed within a stream, lake, wetland
or their associated buffers.
c. Wellhead Protection Areas:
i. All Wellhead Protection Areas – Pesticides and Fertilizers: The application of hazardous
materials such as pesticides or fertilizers containing nitrates within one hundred feet (100') of a
well or two hundred feet (200') of a spring.
ii. Zone 1, as identified in subsection G8 of this Section:
(a) Changes in land use and types of new facilities in which any of the following will be on
the premises:
(1) More than five hundred (500) gallons of hazardous material;
(2) More than one hundred fifty (150) gallons of hazardous material in containers that
are opened and handled;
(3) Containers exceeding five (5) gallons in size; or
(4) Tetrachloroethylene (e.g., dry-cleaning fluid);
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 22
(b) Surface impoundments (as defined in Chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC);
(c) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
(d) All types of landfills, including solid waste landfills;
(e) Transfer stations;
(f) Septic systems;
(g) Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials;
(h) Underground hazardous material storage and/or distribution facilities;
(i) New heating systems using fuel oil except for commercial uses when the source of fuel oil
is an existing above-ground waste oil storage tank;
(j) Petroleum product pipelines;
(k) Hazardous materials use on the site in quantities greater than that allowed for new
facilities as provided in subsection C5ciia of this Section, changes in land use and types of
new facilities, of this subsection, once a facility is closed, relocated, or the use of hazardous
materials is terminated, reinstatement of the use of hazardous materials shall be prohibited;
(l) Facility closure, sale, transfer or temporary or permanent abandonment in a Wellhead
Protection Area without complying with the requirements of RMC 4-9-015F, Closure Permit,
and permit conditions of this Section; and
(m) Facility changes in operations that increase the aggregate quantity of hazardous
materials stored, handled, treated, used, or produced with the following exception: An
increase in the quantity of hazardous materials is allowed up to the amount allowed for a
new facility as provided by subsection C5ciia of this Section, changes in land use and types
of new facilities, of this Section.
iii. Zone 2, as identified in subsection G8 of this Section:
(a) Surface impoundments (as defined in Chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC);
(b) Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 23
(c) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
(d) Solid waste landfills;
(e) Transfer stations;
(f) New heating systems using fuel oil stored in underground storage tanks; and
(g) Petroleum product pipelines.
iv. Zone 1 Modified, as identified in subsection G8 of this Section: The prohibitions of Zone
1 Modified are the same as Zone 1 with the exceptions as follows:
(a) Hazardous Materials Inventory: Existing facilities are not subject to the five hundred
(500) gallons maximum hazardous material quantity limitation in Zone 1 and therefore don’t
have to reduce inventory or relocate. Proposed facilities are subject to the maximum
quantity.
(b) Septic Tanks: Existing septic tanks are allowed to remain and new septic tanks are
allowed if City sewers are not available.
(c) Surface Water Management: Infiltration of runoff is allowed and pipe materials are not
subject to Zone 1 specifications.
(d) Site Improvements: An existing facility that was in compliance with improvements
required at the installation of the facility is not subject to new site improvements
(groundwater monitoring, paving, runoff control, etc.).
6. Nonconforming Activities or Structures: Regulated activities legally in existence prior to the
passage of this Section, but which are not in conformity with the provisions of this Section, are subject
to the provisions of RMC 4-10-090, Critical Areas Regulations – Nonconforming Activities and
Structures.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 24
4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
G. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
6. Habitat Conservation Areas:
a. Classification of Critical Habitats: Habitats that have a primary association with the
documented presence of non-salmonid or salmonid species (see subsection L1 of this Section and
RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or
listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive
and/or of local importance.
b. Mapping: Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species
promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non-game Data System
Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011220-200-100; in the Priority Habitat and
Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and
regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c. Buffers: The Administrator shall require the establishment of buffer areas for activities in, or
adjacent to, habitat conservation areas when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitats of
importance. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, or areas identified for
restoration, established to protect the integrity, functions and values of the affected habitat. Buffer
widths shall be based on:
i. Type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted on the site and adjacent sites.
ii. Recommendations contained within a habitat assessment report.
iii. Management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
d. Alterations Require Mitigation: The Administrator may approve mitigation to compensate for
adverse impacts of a development proposal to habitat conservation areas through use of a federally
and/or state certified mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. See subsection L of this Section.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 25
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS:
A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program consists of the following elements, which are subject to review
and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090:
1. The Shoreline Management Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
2. This Section, RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, which is subject to review and
approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090.
3. Chapter RMC 4-11 RMC, Definitions, which are subject to review and approval by the Washington
State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they relate to this Section
or are defined by RCW 90.58.030, WAC 173-26-020, and WAC 173-27-030.
4. RMC 4-9-190, Shoreline Permits, which are subject to review and approval by the Washington State
Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they relate to specific procedural
mandates of chapter 90.58 RCW and WAC 173-27.
5. RMC 4-10-095, Shoreline Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites, which are subject to
review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to
the extent that they relate to specific procedural mandates of chapter 90.58 RCW .
6. RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, only those provisions incorporated by reference into the
Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RMC 4-3-090.D.2.c.
76. The Shoreline Restoration Element of the Shoreline Master Program, of which one printed copy in
book form has heretofore been filed and is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available
for examination by the general public, shall not be considered to contain regulations but shall be utilized
as a guideline for capital improvements planning by the City and other jurisdictions undertaking
ecological restoration activities within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction.
87. The Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, of which one printed copy has heretofore been filed and
is on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the general public, and
another printed copy of which is available at the Department of Community and Economic
Development. An electronic copy may also be posted online at the City’s website www.rentonwa.gov.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 26
B. REGULATED SHORELINES:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Sshorelines of the State, which include Shorelines of
Statewide Significance and shorelines as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington;
b. Green River (the area within the OHWM of the Green River is not within the Renton City Limits,
but portions of the two hundred foot (200') shoreline jurisdiction are within City limits).
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River;
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM;
c. Black River;
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south;
e. Lake Desire (in the City’s potential annexation area at the time of adoption of the Shoreline
Master Program).
3. The Jurisdictional Area Includes:
a. Lands within two hundred feet (200'), as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM, or
lands within two hundred feet (200') from floodways, whichever is greater;
b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that
are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 27
C. SHORELINES OVERLAY DISTRICTS:
1. Natural Environment Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Natural Environment Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see
subsection A6 A8 of this Section, and shall include that portion of the north bank of the Black River
lying west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations.
2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District: The
objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see
subsection A68 of this Section, and shall include:
• That portion of the Lake Washington shoreline within Gene Coulon Park extending from
one hundred feet (100') north of the northerly end of the northernmost driveway to the
northerly end of the park.
• May Creek east of Lake Washington, including the open space area within the Barbee
Mill site.
• That portion of the south bank of the Cedar River extending from three hundred fifty feet
(350') east of I-405 right-of -way to SR 169.
• The Cedar River, extending from SR 169 to the easterly limit of the Urban Growth Area.
• That portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for
that portion of the west side of the creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the
City’s Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be designated conservancy.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 28
• Per WAC 176-26-211(2)(e) all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not designated
within the Shoreline Master Program are automatically assigned to be in the Urban
Conservancy Overlay District until the shoreline can be re-designated through a
Shoreline Master Program amendment approved by the Washington State Department
of Ecology.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations.
3. Single Family Residential Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Single Family Residential Overlay: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see
subsection A68 of this Section, and shall include those shoreline areas with residential zoning and
use located on Lake Washington, the Cedar River, May Creek, and Lake Desire. Publicly owned
park and open space areas with residential zoning shall be excluded.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations.
4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see
subsection A68 of this Section, and shall include:
• The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation generally zoned properties
north of May Creek, including the Quendall Site and Seahawks Headquarters site.
• The southerly portion of Gene Coulon Park, generally south of and including the over-
water walkway, concession areas, parking areas, boat launch areas, and the swimming
beach.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 29
• The Urban Center (UC), and Industrial-Heavy zoned (IH) areas along the south
shoreline of Lake Washington, the Municipal Airport, and adjacent COR designated
areas.
• The Cedar River from the mouth to I-405.
• The north side of the Cedar River east of I-405 within areas of COR zoning designation.
• Areas of Springbrook Creek not in Natural or Urban Conservancy overlays.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations,
which allows land uses in chapter 4-2 RMC in this overlay district, subject to the preference for
water-dependent and water-oriented uses. Uses adjacent to the water’s edge and within buffer
areas are reserved for water-oriented development, public/community access, and/or ecological
restoration.
5. Shoreline High Intensity – Isolated Lands – Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity – Isolated Lands – Overlay District: The objectives and
criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see
subsection A68 of this Section, and shall include:
i. Areas within shoreline jurisdiction of the Green River but isolated by the intervening railroad
right-of-way.
ii. Areas immediately north of the Cedar River (right bank) and north of Riverside Drive between
Williams Avenue South and Bronson Way North.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Allowed uses are detailed in subsection E1 of this Section,
Shoreline Use Table. The shoreline regulations that apply within this overlay are the land use
regulations of Title IV, Development Regulations, of the Renton Municipal Code, subject to the
permit and procedural requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. In most cases, the
performance standards in this Section do not apply to development or uses in this overlay.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 30
6. Aquatic Shoreline Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Aquatic Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the designation of
this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area waterward of the OHWM of all
streams and rivers, all marine water bodies, and all lakes, constituting shorelines of the State
together with their underlying lands and their water column; but do not include associated wetlands
and other shorelands shoreward of the OHWM. This designation is not found on the Shoreline
Environment Map, but shall be assigned based on the description above.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations,
water-dependent uses and a limited range of water-oriented uses are allowed in the Aquatic
Overlay, subject to provision of shoreline ecological enhancement and public access.
D. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline.
Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations,
and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits.
Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV, Development Regulations, Chapter 4, City-wide Property
Development Standards (chapter 4-4 RMC) contain regulations and standards governing site
development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, tree retention, and others.
Such provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set
forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline
Master Program shall prevail.
2. Environmental Effects:
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that
prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and
processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize,
in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020).
Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and
wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 31
that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion;
infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage;
large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and
stream channel formation/maintenance.
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or
processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on- or off-
site.
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall
demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the
activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following
prioritized order:
(a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action, or moving the action.
(b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative
steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
(c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar
substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking
appropriate corrective measures.
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed
development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the
Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to
provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 32
c. Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical Critical areas regulations, as
codified in shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area
Regulations, are adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded modified in
subsection D2cii and excluded in D2ciii of this Section. Said provisions shall apply to any use,
alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or
written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be
constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full
compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within
shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with
the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions
of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or
inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program,
the most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
(a) Aquifer protection areas.
(b) Areas of special flood hazard.
(c) Sensitive slopes, twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%), and protected slopes,
forty percent (40%) or greater.
(d) Landslide hazard areas.
(e) High erosion hazards.
(f) High seismic hazards.
(g) Coal mine hazards.
(h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
(i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2 through 5
only.
ii. The following provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations in RMC 4-3-050 are modified within
shoreline jurisdiction:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 33
(a) RMC 4-3-050.G.1 is not adopted within shoreline jurisdiction. Uses and developments
within shoreline jurisdiction, including proposals with critical areas, are subject to the
standard of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes.
(b) Within shoreline jurisdiction, variances to critical areas regulations shall be processed
through a shoreline variance in RMC 4-9-190.I, rather than RMC 4-9-250.
(c) To provide for flexibility in the administration of the ecological protection provisions of the
Shoreline Master Program, alternative averaged buffer approaches provided in RMC 4-3-
050.I may be utilized within shoreline jurisdiction. Other reduced buffer allowances provided
in RMC 4-3-050.I are not applicable within the shoreline jurisdiction.
(d) Wetland Identification, Rating, Buffer, Mitigation Ratio, and Buffer Averaging provisions
of 4-3-090.D.2.d shall apply within shoreline jurisdiction.
iii. Inapplicable Critical Area Regulations: The following provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area
Regulations, shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction:
(a) RMC 4-3-050.K Variances, RMC 4-3-050.G.1 and any related reference to RMC 4-9-
250.
(b) RMC 4-3-050.M Appeals, shoreline permit appeals are dictated by the Shoreline
Management Act and must be executed in accordance with RCW 90.58.180.
(c) Any allowance provided based on a reference to Reasonable Use. Within the shoreline
jurisdiction, reasonable use is demonstrated through the shoreline variance.
(e) Other GMA authorized administrative provisions such as appeals, permits, penalties and
enforcement that are not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act.
(f) RMC 4-3-050G.9.d.ii Independent buffer study allowances for alternative wetland
buffers.
(g) Pursuant to 4-3-050.C.3 Table footnote 22, allowances for new accessory structures,
such as fences, gazebos, storage sheds, and playhouses within a critical area buffer are not
applicable within the shoreline jurisdiction.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 34
(a) RMC 4-3-050N, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, subsections N1, Alternates,
and N3, Variances, and
(b) RMC 4-9-250, Variances, Waivers, Modifications and Alternatives.
(c) Wetlands, including shoreline associated wetlands, unless specified below.
ivii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas: Shoreline
Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy shall be considered Class 1 Fish
Habitat Conservation Areas. Regulations for fish habitat conservation areas Class 1 Type S
Streams and Lakes are contained within the development standards and use standards of the
Shoreline Master Program, including but not limited to subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation
Conservation, which establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies and specific
provisions for use and for shoreline modification in subsections E and F of this Section. There
shall be no modification of the required setback and buffer for non-water-dependent uses in
Class 1 Type S Fish Habitat Conservation areas without an approved Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit.
iv. Alternate Mitigation Approaches: To provide for flexibility in the administration of the
ecological protection provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, alternative mitigation
approaches may be applied for as provided in RMC 4-3-050.L.1.g.iv N2, Modifications
Alternative Mitigation. Modifications within shoreline jurisdiction may be approved for those
critical areas regulated by that Section as a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where such
approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over
the standard provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are scientifically supported by
specific studies performed by qualified professionals.
d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of
RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, all areas within
the City meeting the criteria in the approved Federal Washington State Wetland Identification
and Delineation Manual and regional supplements(Ecology Publication No. 96-94), regardless
of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the
provisions of this Chapter.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 35
ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the
functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria
provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised
August 2004 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025 14-06-029). These categories
are generally defined as follows:
(a) Category I Wetlands: Category I wetlands are those wetlands of exceptional value in
terms of protecting water quality, storing flood and stormwater, and/or providing habitat for
wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of seventy (70) twenty-three (23) points or
more. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide
documented habitat for critical, threatened or endangered species, and/or have other
attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if altered.
(b) Category II Wetlands: Category II wetlands have significant value based on their function
as indicated by a rating system score of between fifty one (51) twenty (20) and sixty nine
(69) twenty-two (22) points. They do not meet the criteria for Category I rating but occur
infrequently and have qualities that are difficult to replace if altered.
(c) Category III Wetlands: Category III wetlands have important resource value as indicated
by a rating system score of between thirty (30) sixteen (16) and fifty (50) nineteen (19)
points.
(d) Category IV Wetlands: Category IV wetlands are wetlands of limited resource value as
indicated by a rating system score of less than thirty (30) sixteen (16) points. They typically
have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are isolated or
disconnected from other aquatic systems or high quality upland habitats.
iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall be
required.
iv. Wetland Buffers:
(a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities
adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as
compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer
required for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be
measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 36
areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent
road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics
such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated
or restored to provide buffer functions.
(b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this Chapter presume the
existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland
functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the
standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer
reduction or buffer averaging.
(c) Minimum Buffer Width:
Wetland Category
Low Wildlife Function
(less than 20 points)
Moderate Wildlife
Function (20 – 28
points)
High Wildlife
Function (29 or more
points)
Buffer Width (feet)
Category IV 50 50 50 1
Category III 75 125 150 1
Category II 100 150 225
Category I 125 150 225
1. Habitat scores over 26 points would be very rare for Category III wetlands and almost
impossible for Category IV wetlands that have a total rating of 30 or less.
Wetland Category
High
Habitat
Functions
(8-9 points)
Moderate
Habitat
Functions
(6-7 points)
Low Habitat
Functions
(3-5 points)
Buffer Width (feet)
Category I – Bogs &
Natural Heritage
Wetlands
225 190 190
Category I – All Others 225 110 75
Category II 225 110 75
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 37
Category III 225 110 60
Category IV 40 40 40
(d) Buffer Requirements for Wetland Mitigation Banks: Where wetland mitigation sites or
wetland banks have been approved, required buffers shall be as specified in the mitigation
site or wetland bank approval.
(e) Increased Buffer for Steep Slopes: Where lands within the wetland buffer have an
average continuous slope of twenty percent (20%) to thirty five percent (35%), and the
required buffer width is less than one hundred feet (100'), the buffer shall extend to a thirty
percent (30%) greater dimension. In all cases, where slopes within the buffers exceed thirty
five percent (35%), the buffer shall extend twenty five feet (25') beyond the top of the bank
of the sloping area or to the end of the buffer associated with a geological hazard if one is
present, whichever is greater.
v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be regulated regardless of size;
provided, that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development
or designee shall assure that preservation of isolated wetlands and associated buffers of less
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of combined wetland and buffer shall maintain effective
wetland functions, or be mitigated as provided below.
(a) Wetlands and associated buffers of one thousand (1,000) square feet or less may be
displaced when the wetland meets all of the following criteria, as documented in a wetland
mitigation plan:
(1) The wetland is not associated with a riparian corridor;
(2) The wetland is not part of a wetland mosaic, or collection of small wetlands that are
hydrologically related to one another;
(3) The wetland does not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of
priority species identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;
(4) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection D2dx of this
Section.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 38
(b) Category III and IV wetlands and buffers between one thousand (1,000) and four
thousand (4,000) square feet may be displaced; provided, that all of the following criteria are
documented in a wetland mitigation plan:
(1) The wetland does not score twenty (20) points or greater for habitat in the 2004
Western Washington Rating System;
(2) The wetland is depressional and is recharged only by precipitation, interflow or
groundwater and adjacent development cannot assure a source of recharge to maintain
its hydrologic character through stormwater infiltration, or other means;
(3) The wetlands does not have a potential to reduce flooding or erosion or has the
potential to maintain or improve water quality as evidenced by a score of at least ten (10)
points on the applicable criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington;
(4) The total area of the combined wetland and buffer is ten thousand (10,000) square
feet or less and:
(A) It does not achieve a score of at least twenty (20) points on the Habitat Functions
criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington; and
(B) The wetland and buffer is not connected to a larger open space complex which
may include, but is not limited to, a stream buffer, a buffer associated with a
geological hazard, or other designated open space buffer sufficient to allow
movement of terrestrial wildlife to and from the wetland and buffer complex without
interruption by roads, paved areas or buildings within fifty feet (50');
(5) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection D2dx of this
Section.
v. Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory mitigation for wetland alterations shall
be based on the wetland category and the type of mitigation activity proposed. The replacement
ratio shall be determined according to the ratios provided in the table below. The created, re-
established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at a minimum provide a level of
function equivalent to the wetland being altered and shall be located in an appropriate
landscape setting.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 39
Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio*
Wetland
Category Creation Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement
Only
Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
Category III 2:1 2.1 4:1 8:1
Category II 3:1 3.1 6:1 12:1
Category I 6:1 6:1 8:1 Not allowed
*Ratio is the replacement area: impact area.
vi. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee may average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when the
applicant demonstrates through a wetland study to the satisfaction of the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that all the following criteria
are met:
(a) The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions,
such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component
or a “dual-rated” wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower rated area;
(b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or more
sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less
sensitive portion;
(c) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally parallel to the
wetland edge;
(d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three quarters (3/4) of the required
width.
vii. Reasonable Use: Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be
permitted when all of the following are met:
(a) There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without
buffer averaging;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 40
(b) The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s functions and values
as demonstrated by a wetland assessment study;
(c) The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging and
all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally parallel to the wetland edge;
(d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three quarters (3/4) of the required
width except where the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee finds that there is an existing feature such as a roadway that limits
buffer dimension, or an essential element of a proposed development such as access that
must be accommodated for reasonable use and requires a smaller buffer.
viii. Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed: The Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee may increase the width of the standard buffer width on a
case-by-case basis, based on a critical area study, when a larger buffer is required to protect
critical habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050K, or such increase is necessary to:
(a) Protect the function and value of that wetland from proximity impacts of adjacent land
use, including noise, light and other disturbance, not sufficiently limited by buffers provided
above;
(b) To maintain viable populations of priority species of fish and wildlife; or
(c) Protect wetlands or other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other hazards.
ix. Allowed activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and activities may be allowed
in wetlands or buffer areas by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee subject to the priorities, protection, and mitigation requirements of this
Section:
(a) Utilities: Utility lines and facilities providing local delivery service, not including facilities
such as electrical substations, water and sewage pumping stations, water storage tanks,
petroleum products pipelines and not including transformers or other facilities containing
hazardous substances, may be located in Category I, II, III, and IV wetlands and their
buffers and/or Category I wetland buffers if the following criteria are met:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 41
(1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland buffer based
on analysis of system needs, available technology and alternative routes. Location within
a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a location within a wetland;
(2) The utility line is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a manner
that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
(3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum necessary to
install the utility line, which may include boring, and the area is restored following utility
installation;
(4) Buried utility lines shall be constructed in a manner that prevents adverse impacts to
subsurface drainage. This may include the use of trench plugs or other devices as
needed to maintain hydrology;
(5) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with subsection D2dx of
this Section.
(b) Roadways, Railways, and Bridges: Public and private roadways and railroad facilities,
including bridge construction and culvert installation, if the following criteria are met:
(1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland buffer based
on analysis of system needs, available technology and alternative routes. Location within
a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a location within a wetland;
(2) Facilities parallel to the wetland edge are located as far from the wetland edge as
possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
(3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum necessary,
which may include placement on elevated structures as an alternative to fill, where
feasible;
(4) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with subsection D2dx of
this Section.
(c) Access to Private Development Sites: Access to private development sites may be
permitted to cross Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers, pursuant to the criteria in
subsection D2ix(b) of this Section; provided, that alternative access shall be pursued to the
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 42
maximum extent feasible, including through the provisions of chapter 8.24 RCW. Exceptions
or deviations from technical standards for width or other dimensions, and specific
construction standards to minimize impacts may be specified, including placement on
elevated structures as an alternative to fill, if feasible.
(d) Existing Facilities: Maintenance, repair, or operation of existing structures, facilities, or
improved areas, including minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a
buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions, and subject to
the provisions for nonconforming use and facilities in chapter 4-10 RMC.
(e) Stormwater Facilities: Stormwater conveyance or discharge facilities such as dispersion
trenches, level spreaders, and outfalls may be permitted within a Category I, II, III, or IV
wetland buffer on a case-by-case basis if the following are met:
(1) Due to topographic or other physical constraints, there are no feasible locations for
these facilities to discharge to surface water through existing systems or outside the
buffer. Locations and designs that infiltrate water shall be preferred over a design that
crosses the buffer;
(2) The discharge is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a manner
that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation and avoids long-term rill or channel
erosion.
(f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational activities which
do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife
management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting
blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within
a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
(1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or
pervious material, including boardwalks;
(2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless
a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive
purposes;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 43
(3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes
disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on
an elevated structure as an alternative to fill;
(4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section.
x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or wetland
buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values in
accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection. Compensatory mitigation
shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance,
and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values.
(a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized
order provided for in subsection D2aiii of this Section.
(b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements
shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6
of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and Washington
State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, except in cases
when this Code provides differing standards.
(c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following
order of preference:
(1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
(2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural and/or
historic functions.
(3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of
nonnative, invasive plant species.
(4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands.
(5) Preserving Category I or II wetlands that are under imminent threat; provided, that
preservation shall only be allowed in combination with other forms of mitigation and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 44
when the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee determines that the overall mitigation package fully replaces the functions and
values lost due to development.
(d) Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory mitigation for wetland alterations
shall be based on the wetland category and the type of mitigation activity proposed. The
replacement ratio shall be determined according to the ratios provided in the table below.
The created, re-established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at a minimum
provide a level of function equivalent to the wetland being altered and shall be located in an
appropriate landscape setting.
Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio*
Wetland
Category Creation Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement
Only
Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 2:1 3:1
Category III 2:1 2.1 3:1 4:1
Category II 3:1 3.1 4:1 6:1
Category I 6:1 6:1 8:1 Not allowed
*Ratio is the replacement area: impact area.
(e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts
shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include
enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and
impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures.
(f) Special Requirements for Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks shall not be subject to the
replacement ratios outlined in the replacement ratio table above, but shall be determined as
part of the mitigation banking agreement and certification process.
(g) Buffer Requirements for Replacement Wetlands: Replacement wetlands established
pursuant to these mitigation provisions shall have adequate buffers to ensure their
protection and sustainability. The buffer shall be based on the category in subsection D2dii
of this Section; provided, that the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to approve a smaller buffer
when existing site constraints (such as a road) prohibit attainment of the standard buffer.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 45
(h) Adjustment of Ratios: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee shall have the authority to adjust these ratios when a combination
of mitigation approaches is proposed. In such cases, the area of altered wetland shall be
replaced at a 1:1 ratio through re-establishment or creation, and the remainder of the area
needed to meet the ratio can be replaced by enhancement at a 2:1 ratio. For example,
impacts to one acre of a Category II wetland requiring a 3:1 ratio for creation can be
compensated by creating one acre and enhancing four (4) acres (instead of the additional
two (2) acres of creation that would otherwise be required).
(i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the location that
will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success;
provided, that mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same
watershed sub-basin as the permitted alteration.
(j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off-site shall be permanently protected and
managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values
into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other
protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4.
(k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on
weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible after the permitted
alteration.
(l) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in
accordance with RMC 4-3-050M16. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored
for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but
generally not for a period less than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for
the first year and annually for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent
reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and
contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or
extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10)
years when any of the following conditions apply:
(1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation
plan;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 46
(2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of
the impacted critical area;
(3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require
longer time for establishment.
xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent development
shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and shall include:
(a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area outside
wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented whenever feasible to provide a
rear yard of at least twenty feet (20') between the buffer area and buildings;
(b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to limit domestic
animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas;
(c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far from the wetland and buffer as
feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots and loading areas, mechanical or ventilating
equipment shall be located on sides of buildings away from the wetland, or separated by
noise attenuating walls;
(d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetlands shall be limited by locating areas
requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary, or limiting light mounting heights
to a maximum of four feet (4'). Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the
side of buildings facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below;
(e) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the maximum extent feasible, to
provide groundwater interflow recharge to wetlands and/or water bodies and to limit
overland flow and erosion;
(f) Surface or piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or to other areas,
wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, system design
shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible;
(g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from entering the
buffer, and to prevent washing of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the buffer, if
slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed fifteen percent (15%), a ten feet (10') wide swale to
intercept runoff or other effective interception facility approved by the Administrator of the
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 47
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall be provided at the
edge of the buffer;
(h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including limiting use of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within twenty five feet (25') of the buffer.
xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer conditions and
functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all buffer areas, to include:
(a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and understory; if
existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, planting shall be
required consisting of seedlings at a density of three hundred (300) stems per acre or the
equivalent;
(b) Providing a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the buffer if
existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent development from within the
buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent to two (2) rows of three feet (3') high stock of
native evergreens at a triangular spacing of fifteen feet (15'), or three (3) rows of gallon
containers at a triangular spacing of eight feet (8'). Fencing may be required if needed to
block headlights or other sources of light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen;
(c) Providing a plan for control of invasive weeds, and removal of existing invasive species;
(d) Providing for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five (5) years,
except this provision may be waived for single family residential lots at the discretion of the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee.
e. Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat:
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management facilities
including water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the
current stormwater management standards. Water quality treatment facilities shall be provided
for moderate alteration of nonconforming structures, uses and sites as provided for in RMC 4-
10-095.
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for control of
erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through
approved temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or administrative conditions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 48
iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize interference
with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine directly onto the water.
Exterior lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices such that glare or direct illumination
does not extend into water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches to ensure that
lights are extinguished when not in use.
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects:
a. General: Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed and operated to allow the
public’s visual access to the water and shoreline and maintain shoreline scenic and aesthetic
qualities that are derived from natural features, such as shoreforms and vegetative cover.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and criteria shall apply to
developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi-family and/or multi-
lot developments are proposed, primary structures shall provide for view corridors between
buildings where views of the shoreline are available from public right-of-way or trails.
ii. Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a in height of no more than thirty five
feet (35') above average finished grade level except at specific locations as specified in Table 4-
3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards.
iii. Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential or Park Uses: All
new or expanded commercial development adjacent to residential use and public parks shall
provide fifteen feet (15') setbacks from adjacent properties to attenuate proximity impacts such
as noise, light and glare, and may address scale and aesthetic impacts. Fencing or landscape
areas may be required to provide a visual screen.
iv. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so
as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby properties used for noncommercial purposes,
and to prevent hazards for public traffic. Methods of controlling spillover light include, but are not
limited to, limits on the height of light structure, limits on light levels of fixtures, light shields, and
screening.
v. Reflected Lights to Be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ
materials that limit reflected light.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 49
vi. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical equipment shall be
incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs, to the maximum extent
feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be incorporated into architectural features, a
visual screen shall be provided consistent with building exterior materials that obstructs views of
such equipment.
vii. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to Be Minimized: Facilities not incorporated
into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires, lights, and other freestanding structures shall
be designed to minimize visual prominence.
viii. Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located within shoreline vegetated
buffers shall not exceed four feet (4') in width; provided, that where ADA requirements apply,
such facilities may be increased to six feet (6') in width. Stairways shall conform to the existing
topography to the extent feasible.
ix. Other Design Standards: Any other design standards included in community plans or
regulations adopted by the City shall be incorporated.
c. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other
structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided or
mitigated.
d. Design Requirements: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns, and other
aspects of the overall design of a site shall be in conformance with urban design and other
standards contained in RMC 4-3-100, Urban Design Regulations, and other applicable provisions of
RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, as well as specific policies and standards of the Shoreline
Master Program.
e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC 4-4-095 concerning screening of mechanical
equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall apply within shorelines with the additional
criteria that the provisions for bringing structures or sites into conformance shall occur for minor
alteration or renovation as provided in RMC 4-9-190.
4. Public Access:
a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access to
shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would either
generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing legal access
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 50
opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the Shoreline
Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is
established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives
by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for public access, including off-site facilities
designated in the table Public Access Requirements by Reach in subsection D4f of this Section.
b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the following development, subject
to the criteria in subsection D4d of this Section.
i. Water-dependent uses and developments that increase public use of the shorelines and
public aquatic lands, or that would impair existing legal access opportunities, or that utilize
public harbor lands or aquatic lands, or that are developed with public funding or other public
resources.
ii. Non-water-dependent development and uses shall provide community and/or public access
consistent with the specific use standards in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations,
unless ecological restoration is provided.
iii. Developments of more than ten (10) single family residential lots or single family dwelling
units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel are required to
provide public access. Developments of more than four (4) but less than ten (10) single family
residential lots or single family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a
contiguously owned parcel are required to provide community access.
iv. Development of any non-single- family residential development or use consistent with the
specific use standards in subsection E9 of this Section, Residential Development.
v. Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single family residential use of the
shoreline, including docks accessory to single family residential use.
vi. Publicly financed or subsidized flood control or shoreline stabilization shall not restrict public
access to the shoreline and shall include provisions for new public access to the maximum
extent feasible.
vii. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way shall not
be diminished by any public or private development or use (RCW 35.79.035 and
RCW 36.87.130).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 51
c. Criteria for Modification of Public Access Requirements: The requirements for public access
may be modified as a shoreline conditional use for any application in which the following criteria are
demonstrated to be met in addition to the general criteria for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. In
cases where a Substantial Development Permit is not required, use of this waiver or modification
may take place only through a shoreline variance. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
demonstrate that the criteria are met. As a condition of modification of access requirements,
contribution to an off-site public access site shall be required.
i. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that cannot be prevented by any
practical means.
ii. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of
alternative design features or other solutions.
iii. The cost of providing the access, or mitigating the impacts of public access, is unreasonably
disproportionate to the total long-term development and operational cost over the life-span of
the proposed development.
iv. Significant environmental impacts will result from the public access that cannot be mitigated.
v. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed
use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated.
vi. Prior to determining that public access is not required, all reasonable alternatives must be
pursued, including but not limited to:
(a) Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use;
(b) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-way
glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and
(c) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing platforms that
may be physically separated from the water’s edge, but only if access adjacent to the water
is precluded.
d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following location
and design criteria:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 52
i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where
vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian
walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive
ecological features, may be set back from the water’s edge, and may provide limited and
controlled access to sensitive features and the water’s edge where appropriate. Fencing may be
provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where
appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six
feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.
ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites or
portions of sites not including vegetated open space shall be not less than ten percent (10%) of
the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square feet,
whichever is greater, on developments including non-water-dependent uses. For water-
dependent uses, the amount and location may be varied in accordance with the criteria in
subsection F3 of this Section. Public access facilities shall extend along the entire water
frontage, unless such facilities interfere with the functions of water-dependent uses. The
minimum width of public access facilities shall be ten feet (10') and shall be constructed of
materials consistent with the design of the development; provided, that facilities addressed in
the Renton Trails and Bicycle and Trails Master Plan shall be developed in accordance with the
standards of that plan.
iii. Access Requirements for Over-Water Structures: Public access on over-water structures on
public aquatic lands, except for docks serving a single family residence, shall be provided and
may include common use of walkway areas. Moorage facilities serving five (5) or more vessels
shall provide a publicly accessible area of at least ten feet (10') at or near the end of the
structure. Public marinas serving twenty (20) or more vessels may restrict access to specific
moorage areas for security purposes as long as an area of at least ten percent (10%) of the
over-water structure is available for public access and an area of at least twenty (20) square
feet is provided at or near the end of the structure. Public access areas may be used in common
by other users, but may not include adjacent moorage that obstructs public access to the edge
of the water or obstructs views of the water.
iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and development
standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections D4di, D4dii, or D4diii of this
Section, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection
and enhancement of ecological functions, shall prevail.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 53
v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public access for
specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management
Element, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach and in subsection D4f of
this Section, Table of Public Access Requirements by Reach:
(a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in applying these
provisions to individual development sites.
(b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in planning and
implementing public projects.
vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for off-site public access and
may assess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of their public access
requirements. Such a fund and charges may be part of or coordinated with park impact fees.
Off-site public access shall be developed in accordance with the reach policies for public
access.
e. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the
following design and other features:
i. Relation to Other Facilities:
(a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas,
accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include
provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible.
(b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public
street, on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments
required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in
addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space
per five thousand (5,000) square feet of public access area for more than three (3) spaces.
Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access area
and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped accessible.
(c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City’s
transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline
and non-shoreline areas of a site.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 54
ii. Design:
(a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to
reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge and to view the water and the shoreline from
adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline’s edge as
feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features
or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions.
(b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding
locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or
by screening or other separation techniques.
iii. Use and Maintenance:
(a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully
developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity or in
accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation through a monetary
performance assurance.
(b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be maintained over
the life of the use or development. Future actions by successors in interest or other parties
shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required public access areas and associated
improvements.
(c) Public Access Must Be Legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private land shall
run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an easement, or as a
dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior
to the time of building occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first.
(d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall be the
responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or nonprofit agency
through a formal recorded agreement.
(e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public twenty four (24)
hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline
permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial permit
approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 55
(f) Signage Required: The standard State-approved logo or other approved signs that
indicate the public’s right of access and hours of access shall be installed and maintained by
the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at
the nearest connection to an off-site public right-of-way.
f. Public Access Requirements by Reach: The following table identifies the performance
standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by the use
regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A and B
Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new
nonresidential development occurs consistent with standards of this Section.
Lake Washington
Reach C
The potential for provision of public access from new development will occur
after cleanup of the Superfund site with multi-use development, which shall
include shoreline access across the entire property, with controlled access to
the water’s edge, consistent with requirements for vegetation conservation
and ecological restoration and provisions for water-dependent use, consistent
with standards of this Section. Provision of public access from future
redevelopment of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site shall include a
continuous public access trail parallel to the shoreline with controlled public
access balanced with provisions for ecological restoration, as well as to
shared or commercial docks, consistent with standards of this Section.
Lake Washington
Reach D and E
Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new
nonresidential development occurs consistent with standards of this Section.
Lake Washington
Reach F and G
Public access is one element of park functions that should be continued and
incorporated in future plans and balanced with goals for recreation and
improving ecologic functions.
Lake Washington
Reach H
Public access should continue in the future as part of multi-use development
of the balance of the property consistent with standards of this Section.
Development should include supporting water-oriented uses and amenities
such as seating and landscaping.
Lake Washington
Reach I
Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of upland State-
owned aquatic lands managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is
redeveloped, public access should be provided parallel to the shoreline along
the entire property, consistent with standards of this Section, together with
goals for ecological restoration and water-dependent and water-oriented use.
Lake Washington
Reach J
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the
Will Rogers, Wiley Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be maintained
if such access is not in conflict with the aeronautical use of the property.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 56
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
Lake Washington
Reach K
If redevelopment of non-single -family use occurs, public access shall consist
of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the shoreline along the entire
property frontage with controlled access to the water’s edge, consistent with
standards of this Section and requirements for vegetation conservation and
ecological restoration. Public access shall be provided when lots are
subdivided consistent with standards of this Section.
May Creek
May Creek A If development occurs adjacent to the streamside, open space standards for
vegetation conservation and public access shall be met consistent with
standards of this Section.
May Creek B At the time of redevelopment, public access should be provided consistent
with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire
property with controlled public access to the water consistent with standards
of this Section, and goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
functions.
May Creek C and D At the time of development of private lands, public access should be provided
consistent with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water
consistent with trails on public land. All trail development should be set back
from the water’s edge with controlled public access to the water and
consistent with standards of this Section and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided if
the Renton Municipal Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals of
ecological restoration.
Cedar River B Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands
adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated by
public streets should provide active open space and other facilities to provide
gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment, together with water-
oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the
water’s edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part
of public park and river maintenance plans.
Cedar River C Public/community access along the waterfront should be provided as private
lands on the north side of the river redevelop, considered along with the goal
of restoration of ecological functions. Public or community access shall be
provided when residential development occurs consistent with standards of
the Shoreline Master Program.
Cedar River D The primary goal for management of this reach should be ecological
enhancement. Additional public access to the water’s edge may be provided if
consistent with ecological functions. Public access shall be provided when
residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards of this Section.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 57
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
Green River Reach A Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as
private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access
should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the
Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. Expansion of public access in the Black
River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Black
River/Springbrook A
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as
private lands redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River
Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. A
trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage
treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to connect to
the Lake to Sound Trail.
Springbrook B Enhancement of the trail system on the WSDOT right-of-way that crosses
under I-405 should be implemented as part of future highway improvements
or other public agency actions.
Springbrook C If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting
to the existing trail system to the south should be planned, consistent with
protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation.
Lake Desire
Lake Desire If the existing boat launch area is altered in the future, public access other
than boating facilities should include a viewing area. There is currently no
formal public access to the water at the Natural Area at the south end of the
lake or the County designated Natural Area at the north end of the lake.
Interpretive access should be implemented consistent with standards of this
Section and goals for preservation and restoration of ecological values. Public
access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new nonresidential
development occurs consistent with standards of this Section.
5. Building and Development Location – Shoreline Orientation:
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water-
enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be
designed in a manner that directs land alteration to away from the least most sensitive portions of
the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect
riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological,
historic and cultural resources; minimize risk to persons and property; and preserve aesthetic
values.
b. Design and Performance Standards:
i. Reserved. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner d
that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 58
ii. Reserved. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions
provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany
development proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel less
than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement.. Such
assessments shall include the following general information:
(a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear designation
of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features.
(b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features,
together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological
functions.
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with
substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
(a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing, grading,
and alteration of topography and natural features.
(b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of
under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
(c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever feasible.
(d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural shoreline
stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited
instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-
dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological
functions will result.
iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does not require a
shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is
required to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or developments or unless otherwise
allowed in a High Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or
developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and
storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of
water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the water
is reasonably necessary.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 59
v. Navigation and Recreation to Be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive other uses of
reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-related recreation shall be preserved.
6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources:
a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal,
and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and
archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information
from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with
undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources.
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical,
cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for
development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample
time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an
area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified
professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified
parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are
discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped
immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find,
the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may
provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies.
e. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are encouraged to provide
access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public
education related to a cultural resource identified on a property.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 60
7. Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height:
a. Shoreline Bulk Standards: This table establishes the minimum required dimensional
requirements for development including all structures and substantial alteration of natural
topography. Additional standards may be established in subsection E of this Section, Use
Regulations, and subsection F of this Section, Shoreline Modification.
Table 4-3-090D7a – Shoreline Bulk Standards
Natural Urban
Conservancy
Shoreline
Single
Family13
High
Intensity13
High
Intensity
Isolated
Aquatic
Setbacks and Buffers
Structure Setback
from Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) –
Minimum1
Water-Dependent
Use
100 ft. 100 ft. None2 None2 None
Water-Related or
Water Enjoyment
Use
100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.3 100 ft.4 None
Non-Water-Oriented
Use
100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.3 100 ft.5 None
Front Yard, Side
Yard, and Rear Yard
Setbacks
Governed by underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC except in cases where
specific shoreline performance standards provide otherwise. A zoning
variance Variance from the front and side yard standards may be granted
administratively if needed to meet the established shoreline buffer or setback
from OHWM, as specified in this Section and if standard the variance criteria
of RMC 4-9-250 are met.
Vegetation
Conservation Buffer
for Single Family
Residential Uses 1
100 ft. 100 ft. Varies based on lot depth. If
the lot depth is:
more than 170 ft. – 50 ft.
more than 150 ft. to 170 ft –
35 ft.
more than 130 ft. to 150 ft. –
20 ft.
100 ft. to 130 ft. – 15 ft.
less than 100 ft. – 10 ft.
2,3,4,5,9
None
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 61
Table 4-3-090D7a – Shoreline Bulk Standards
Natural Urban
Conservancy
Shoreline
Single
Family13
High
Intensity13
High
Intensity
Isolated
Aquatic
100 ft.4,5
Vegetation
Conservation Buffer
for All Other Uses 1
100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 2, 5, 9 100 ft.2,4,5,9 None
Building Height –
Maximum
In Water Not
allowed
Not allowed 35 ft.6 35 ft.6 35 ft.6
Within 100 ft. of
OHWM
Not
allowed
Not allowed 35 ft.7 35 ft.8 Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9 RMC
More Than 100 ft. from
OHWM
15 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.7 35 ft.8 Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9 RMC
Accessory Building 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Same as
above
Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9RMC
Coverage Standards
Impervious Area
within the Vegetation
Conservation
Buffer/Setback
Not
allowed
5%10 5%10 5%10 Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9RMC
Impervious Area
landward of the buffer
and within 100 ft. of
OHWM – Maximum
Not
allowed
10%11 50%11 50%11 Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9RMC
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 62
Table 4-3-090D7a – Shoreline Bulk Standards
Natural Urban
Conservancy
Shoreline
Single
Family13
High
Intensity13
High
Intensity
Isolated
Aquatic
Lot Coverage for
Buildings landward of
the buffer and within
100 ft. of OHWM –
Maximum
5%12 5%12 25%12 None12 Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9RMC
Lot Coverage for
Buildings More Than
100 ft. from OHWM –
Maximum
5% 15% 35% Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9
Governed by
underlying
zoning in
chapter 4-
2 RMC9
Table Notes:
1. Architectural features of buildings, such as eaves or balconies, and other building elements
above the first floor may project a maximum of five feet (5') into the buffer/setback area as
established in this table, or as modified by subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation
building setback. These projections are allowed within the buffer when the building setback is zero
feet (0’) from the buffer. The Administrator may allow other projections in the building setback listed
in RMC 4-2-110.E.4 where not otherwise specifically addressed in the SMP and not conflicting with
the purpose of the building setback.
2. Setback For water-dependent uses, the buffer and associated building setback shall be the
maximum determined by the specific needs of the water-dependent use and shall not apply to a
structure housing any other use.
3. Building setback and buffer may be based on lot depth as provided in subsection F1c of this
Section. Alternative Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Single Family Lots:
Setbacks: If the buffer is less than one hundred feet (100’) from the OHWM the building setback is
established as the common line setback or fifteen feet (15’) landward from the minimum buffer,
whichever is greater. The common line setback is calculated by measuring the closest point of the
primary structure to the OHWM on each of the abutting properties and averaging the two (2)
primary building setbacks. If a dwelling unit does not exist on an abutting property then the setback
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 63
of the abutting property without a dwelling unit, for the purposes of determining an average setback,
shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the parcel depth.
Buffers: If there is an existing buffer greater than the minimum required it shall be maintained to its
present extent, or no greater than one hundred feet (100’) from the OHWM, whichever is closer to
the OHW M. If the present buffer is regulated to one hundred feet (100’), the required building
setback shall be zero feet (0’).
4. Buildings related to Wwater-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases
where the vegetation conservation buffer is varied modified in accordance with subsection F1 of this
Section, Vegetation Conservation. Buildings provided that in no case shall buildings be no located
closer than fifty feet (50'), except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the
adoption of this Section from OHWM.
5. Non-water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the
vegetation conservation buffer is varied in accordance with subsection F1 of this Section,
Vegetation Conservation. Buildings shall be no closer than seventy five feet (75'), except as
consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section. When a buffer is
one hundred feet (100’), the required building setback shall be zero feet (0’). Where the buffer is
reduced per RMC 4-3-090.F.1, the Administrator shall require a building setback to ensure that
buildings are not located within one hundred feet (100’) of the OHWM in the Natural and Urban
Conservancy Environments. In the High Intensity Environment, the required building setback may
be reduced to within seventy-five feet (75’) of the OHWM in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.1. In
the Single Family Environment the buffer and setback is subject to Table Note 3 Alternative
Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots.
6. Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use, except
as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
7. If the maximum allowed height in the underlying zoning is less than the maximum allowed
height in the shoreline overlay, a non-shoreline variance from the standard in chapter 4-2 RMC,
Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards, must be obtained from the Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee to allow any height over the amount
allowed in the underlying zone.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 64
8. Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use. Height
up to that established in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards, may be allowed
for non-water-dependent uses in the following reaches:
Lake Washington Reaches C, H, I, and J; Cedar River Reaches A, B, and C; Black River
Reach A; May Creek Reach B; and Springbrook Creek Reaches B, C, and D:
a. For buildings landward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the maximum building
height shall be defined by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall:
i. Begin along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from OHWM at a height
of either thirty-five feet (35') or one-half (1/2) the maximum height allowed in the underlying
zone, whichever is greater; and
ii. Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of one vertical to one horizontal from the
beginning height either (a) until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the
underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC is reached (from which line the height envelope shall
extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning), or (b) to the end
of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
b. For buildings allowed waterward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM through a modified
setback and buffer, the maximum building height shall be as follows:
i. Between the modified setback and buffer line and the line lying parallel to and one
hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the maximum building height shall be defined by a
maximum allowable building height envelope that shall:
(a) Begin at a height of thirty-five feet (35') along the line of the modified setback and
buffer; and
(b) Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of one vertical to one horizontal
from the beginning height either until the line at which the maximum height allowed in
the underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC is reached (from which line the height
envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning)
or to the line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, whichever comes
first; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 65
ii. Landward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the applicant shall have the option of
choosing the maximum building height defined by either:
(a) Using the maximum allowable building height envelope described in Table Note
8.a, above; or
(b) Having the maximum allowable building height envelope described in Table Note
8.b.i, above, continue an upward, landward transition at a slope of one vertical to one
horizontal from the envelope’s height along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet
(100') from OHWM either until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the
underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC is reached (from which line the height envelope
shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning), or to the
end of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
9. For short plats of no more than four (4) lots approved in the Shoreline Single Family or High
Intensity shoreline designations, use of the minimum buffer and setback by lot depth is allowed.
Height is governed by the underlying standards in chapter 4-2 RMC; provided, that if a property is
separated from OHWM by an intervening parcel in separate ownership and the distance from
OHWM is less than one hundred feet (100'), the height adjacent to the intervening parcel in
separate ownership and the distance from OHWM is less than one hundred feet (100'),, the height
adjacent to the intervening parcel is limited to an increase over the maximum allowed use of the
intervening parcel at a slope of one vertical to one horizontal.
10. No building coverage is allowed in buffers. Up to five percent (5%) impervious surface is
allowed in vegetation conservation buffers/setbacks for access to the shoreline, or a pathway up to
six feet (6') wide that is located to minimize impervious surface coverage, whichever is greater. In
addition, for projects that provide public access and the opportunity for substantial numbers of
people to enjoy the shoreline, up to twenty-five percent (25%) impervious surface is allowed within
the buffer; provided, that no more than five percent (5%) impervious surface is allowed closer than
twenty-five feet (25') from the OHWM or a pathway up to six feet (6') wide, whichever is greater.
The Administrator may approve public access within the first twenty-five feet (25’) from the OHWM
where such area already exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) impervious area consistent with RMC
4-10-095.
11. In cases where the depth of the vegetation conservation buffer setback is modified in
accordance with subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, that portion of the first less
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 66
than one hundred feet (100') from the OHWM, upon which development is to be located the area
landward of the buffer and within one hundred feet (100’) of the OHWM is permitted a maximum of
fifty percent (50%) impervious surface, unless a different standard is stated below:
Lake Washington Reaches H and I – Up to seventy-five percent (75%) impervious surface, except
as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Lake Washington Reach J – No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach A – No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B and C – No limit to impervious surface.
Cedar River Reach D – No more than five percent (5%) impervious surface.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D – No more than sixty-five percent (65%) impervious
surface.
12. No building coverage is allowed in vegetation conservation buffers. If the buffer depth is
modified in accordance with subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, that portion of
the setback falls within first one hundred feet (100') from OHWM upon which development is, the
area landward of the setback to be located and within one hundred feet (100’) of the OHWM shall
be permitted the following lot coverage:
Lake Washington High Intensity Overlay District – Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage,
except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Cedar River Reach A – Up to twenty percent (20%) for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B – No limit on building coverage.
Cedar River Reach C – Up to sixty-five percent (65%) building coverage, or up to seventy-five
percent (75%) if parking is provided within a building or parking garage (parking stall may not be
located within one hundred feet (100') of OHWM).
Cedar River Reach D – No more than five percent (5%) building coverage.
Green River A – Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage.
Springbrook Creek Reach A – No more than five percent (5%) building coverage.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 67
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D – Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage.
13. Fences may be permitted in the Single Family and High Intensity designations as follows:
a. Fences along a property line aligned roughly perpendicular to the shoreline shall be located
landward of the prescribed buffer and shall be no more than four feet (4’) high when separating
two residential lots and no more than six feet (6’) high when separating a residential lot from
public lands, including right-of-ways. For nonconforming sites where maintained lawn,
landscaping, or active use area exists waterward of the prescribed buffer, fences perpendicular
to the shoreline may be located waterward of the prescribed buffer but shall be no closer than
fifteen feet (15') to the OHWM.
b. Fences aligned roughly parallel to the shoreline shall be located landward of the prescribed
buffer and shall be no more than four feet (4’) high. For nonconforming sites where maintained
lawn, landscaping, or active use area exists waterward of the prescribed buffer, fences parallel
to the shoreline may be located waterward of the prescribed buffer but shall be no closer than
fifteen feet (15') to the OHWM.
c. The opaque portions of a fence (e.g., boards or slats) must not cover more than sixty percent
(60%) of the fence; at least forty percent (40%) of the fence must be open. Chain link fences
shall not permitted in buffers of rivers or streams; where allowed, chain link fencing shall be
vinyl coated.
d. No trees shall be removed in order to install the fence.
e. No fences may be erected in critical areas or their buffers except in conformance with RMC
4-3-050.
f. All fences shall be located outside the flood hazard area.
b. City-Wide Development Standards: Table 4-3-090D7a replaces the standards of the
underlying zone in chapter 4-2 RMC for those specific standards enumerated. All other standards of
the Renton development regulations, flood control regulations, subdivision regulations, health
regulations, and other adopted regulatory provisions apply within shoreline jurisdiction. In the event
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 68
the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program conflict with provisions of other City regulations, the
more restrictive shall prevail.
c. Measurement:
i. Horizontal measurement shall be measured outward on a plane and in the direction that
results in the greatest dimension from property lines, or from other features specified.
ii. Height is measured consistent with the definition of “building height” in RMC 4-11-020.
d. Activities Uses and Improvements Exempt from Buffers and Setbacks: The following
development activities uses and improvements are not subject to allowed within buffers and
setbacks; subject to the shoreline bulk or coverage standards provided, that they are constructed
and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions; and
provided further, that they comply with all the applicable regulations in RMC Title IV:
i. Water-Dependent Development: Those portions of approved water-dependent development
that require a location waterward of the OHWM of streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, marine
shorelines, associated wetlands, and/or within their associated buffers.
ii. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities, including stormwater outfalls and conveyance
pipes.
iii. Modifications Necessary for Agency Compliance: Modifications to existing development that
are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency, when otherwise
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; provided, that the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee determines that:
(a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which
it is intended;
(b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional
standards to the maximum extent feasible; and
(c) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for nonconforming development
and uses.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 69
iv. Necessary Access: Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross
shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-dependent development subject to
development standards in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations.
v. Stairs and Walkways: Stairs and walkways not greater than five feet (5') in width or eighteen
inches (18') in height above grade, except for railings.
vi. Essential Public Facilities: An essential public facility or public utility where the Administrator
of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee determines that:
(a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which
it is intended; and
(b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional
standards to the maximum extent feasible.
vii. Shared Moorage: Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located
on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where
appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and
egress to the facility.
viii. Flood Storage: Approved compensating flood storage areas.
8. Private Property Rights: Regulation of private property to implement any program goals such as
public access and protection of ecological functions must be consistent with all relevant constitutional
and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable Federal and State case
law, and State statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328, 43.21C.060, and 82.02.020. The Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to make
findings concerning public access regarding nexus and proportionality on any shoreline permit.
9. Treaty Rights: Rights reserved or otherwise held by Indian Tribes pursuant to treaties, executive
orders, or statutes, including right to hunt, fish, gather, and the right to reserved water, shall not be
impaired or limited by any action taken or authorized by the City under its Shoreline Master Program,
and all rights shall be accommodated.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 70
E. USE REGULATIONS:
1. Shoreline Use Table: Uses specified in the table below are subject to the use and development
standards elsewhere in this Section and the policies of the Shoreline Master Program. Uses not
specified in this table may be allowed through a Shoreline Conditional Use permit if allowed in the
underlying zoning. All development within shoreline jurisdiction, even if a permitted use in the table
below, is subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development permit or Shoreline Exemption as required in
RMC 4-9-190.B.3.
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
RESOURCE
Aquaculture P1 P1 X P P X
Mining X X X X X X
Preservation and
Enhancement of
Natural Features or
Ecological Processes
P1 P P P8 Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Low Intensity
Scientific, Cultural,
Historic, or
Educational Use
P1 P P P8
Fish and Wildlife
Resource
Enhancement
P1 P P P8
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 71
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
Conditional Use
Permit.
RESIDENTIAL
Detached Dwellings X P4 P5 X Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Attached Dwellings X X X X
Accessory Dwelling
Units
X AD AD X
Group Homes I X X X X
Group Homes II (for
six or fewer residents)
X X P X
Group Homes II (for
seven or more
residents)
X X H X
Adult Family Home X X HAs
allowed in
underlying
zoning.
X
CIVIC USES
K-12 Educational
Institution (public or
private)
X X P X Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
Roads (not providing
direct access to
permitted or
conditional uses)
X X H X
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 72
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
COMMERCIAL USES
Home Occupations X P AD X Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Adult Day Care I X X AD X
Adult Day Care II X X H X
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 73
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
RECREATION
Parks, Neighborhood H1 H6 P P8 Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Parks,
Regional/Community
H1 H6 AD6 P8
Passive Recreation H1 P P P8
Public Hiking and
Bicycle Trails, Over
Land
H1 P1 P X
Active Recreation X P2 P P8
Boat Launches X P X P8
Mooring Piles X P P P8
Boat Moorage X P P P8
Boat Lifts X X P7 P8
Boat Houses X X X X
Golf Courses X H2 H X
Marinas X X AD6 P8
Expansion of Existing
Over-Water Trails
H10 AD10 AD10 AD10 AD10 X
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial Use X X X H8 Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
Except for
the land uses
specifically
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 74
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
UTILITIES
Structures for
Floodway
Management,
Including Drainage or
Storage and Pumping
Facilities
H1 P P P8 Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Local Service Utilities X P3 P3 P8
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 75
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
Major Service Utilities X H6 H6 H6 P3 P8
ACCESSORY USES
Parking Areas X P3 P3 X Except for the land
uses specified in
this table, land uses
allowed in the
underlying zoning
in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this
overlay district,
subject to the
preference for
water-oriented
uses. Land uses in
the underlying
zoning that require
an administrative
(AD) or Hearing
Examiner (H)
conditional use
permit in the
underlying zoning
require the
corresponding
Shoreline
Conditional Use
Permit.
Except for
the land uses
specifically
prohibited in
this table,
land uses
allowed in
the
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2-
060 are
allowed in
this overlay
district.
Roads X P3 P3 X
Bed and Breakfast
House
X X AD X
Sea Plane Moorage X X P P8
Helipads X X P P8
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 76
Table 4-3-090E1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X = Prohibited, P = Permitted, AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H = Hearing
Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural
Urban
Conservancy
Single
Family
Residential Aquatic High Intensity
High
Intensity
Isolated
USES NOT
SPECIFIED
X X H9 H8 H9 X
Table Notes:
1. Provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the
shoreline area.
2. Use is allowed, but structures shall not be placed within the shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Allowed only to serve approved or conditional uses, but should be located outside of shoreline
jurisdiction if feasible.
4. Limited to existing lots, or clustered subdivisions that retain sensitive areas.
5. Includes uses customarily incidental to and subordinate to the primary use, and located on the
same lot.
6. Existing use is permitted, but new use is subject to a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
7. Allowed as accessory to a residential dock; provided, that all lifts are placed as far waterward
as feasible and safe; and platform lifts are fully grated.
8. Only allowed if the use is water-dependent.
9. If the unspecified use is prohibited in the underlying zoning it is also prohibited in shoreline
jurisdiction. Reserved.
10. No new over-water trails shall be allowed unless it is part of the expansion of an existing over-
water trail or over-water trail system. Such expansions shall be considered a conditional use if
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 77
allowed in the Public Access Requirements by Reach Table at subsection D4f of this Section and if
impacts are limited.
2. Aquaculture:
a. No Net Loss Required: Aquaculture shall not be permitted in areas where it would result in a net
loss of ecological functions and shall be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native
aquatic life, or establish new non-native species which cause significant ecological impacts.
b. Aesthetics: Aquaculture facilities shall not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline.
c. Structure Requirements: All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions:
i. They shall be securely fastened to the shore.
ii. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the natural systems of the
waterway including, for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life.
iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming and/or
boating.
iv. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if potential conf licts
exist.
3. Boat Launching Ramps:
a. Boat Launching Ramps Shall Be Public: Any new boat launching ramp shall be public, except
those related to a marina, water-dependent use, or providing for hand launching of small boats with
no provisions for vehicles or motorized facilities.
b. No Net Loss Required: Choice of sites for boat launching ramps shall ensure no net loss of
ecological functions through assessment of the shoreline conditions and impacts of alteration of
those conditions, as well as the disturbance resulting from the volume of boat users.
c. Consideration of Impacts on Adjacent Uses: Launch ramps locations shall consider impacts
on adjacent uses including:
i. Traffic generation and the adequacy of public streets to service.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 78
ii. Impacts on adjacent uses, including noise, light, and glare.
iii. Hours of operation may be restricted to assure compatibility.
iv. Potential impacts on aquatic habitat, including impacts of disturbance by boats using the
facility.
d. Water and Shore Characteristics:
i. Water depth shall be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats without maintenance
dredging.
ii. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp activity.
e. Topography: The proposed area shall not present major geological or topographical obstacles
to construction or operation of the ramp. Site adaptation such as dredging shall be minimized.
f. Design to Ensure Minimal Impact: The ramp shall be designed so as to allow for ease of
access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface.
g. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other hard
permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used. The material
chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions:
i. Soil characteristics;
ii. Erosion;
iii. Water currents;
iv. Waterfront conditions;
v. Usage of the ramp;
vi. Durability; and
vii. Avoidance of contamination of the water.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 79
h. Shore Facilities Required:
i. Adequate on-shore parking and maneuvering areas shall be provided based on projected
demand. Provision shall be made to limit use to available parking to prevent spillover outside
designated parking areas.
ii. Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate City
department.
4. Commercial and Community Services:
a. Use Preference and Priorities: New commercial and community services developments are
subject to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: Water-dependent commercial and community service uses shall be
given preference over water-related and water-enjoyment commercial and community service
uses. Prior to approval of water-dependent uses, the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee shall review a proposal for design, layout,
and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water-
dependent use. Water-dependent commercial and community service uses shall provide public
access in a manner that will not interfere with the water-dependent aspects of the use. The
portion of a site not required for water-oriented use may include multiple use, approved non-
water-oriented uses, ecological restoration, and public access. All uses shall provide public
access in accordance with subsection D4f of this Section, Table of Public Access Requirements
by Reach. On Lake Washington, multiple use development that incorporates water-dependent
use within one hundred feet (100') of the OHWM may not include non-water-oriented uses at
the ground level.
ii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related commercial and community service uses shall not be
approved if they displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a water-related
commercial or community service use, review of the design, layout, and operation of the use
shall confirm that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use
provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses, and/or the proximity of
the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. On Lake
Washington, allowed water-related commercial and community service uses shall be evaluated
in terms of whether the use facilitates a State-wide interest, including increasing public access
and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 80
iii. Water-Enjoyment Uses: Water-enjoyment commercial and community service uses shall not
be approved if they displace existing water-dependent or water-related uses or if they occupy
space designated for water-dependent or water-related use identified in a substantial
development permit or other approval. Prior to approval of water-enjoyment uses, review of the
design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use facilitates public access to the
shoreline as, or the use provides for, aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial
number of people as a primary characteristic of the use. The ground floor of the use must be
ordinarily open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be
devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline enjoyment. On Lake Washington,
allowed water-enjoyment commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use
facilitates a State-wide interest, including increasing public access and public recreational
opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-Water-Oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented commercial and community service uses may
be permitted where:
(a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private property in
separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use is
precluded; provided, that such conditions were lawfully established prior to the effective date
of the Shoreline Master Program, or established with the approval of the City; or
(b) Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited (i.e., all shoreline rivers and
creeks), the commercial or community service use provides a significant public benefit such
as providing public access and/or ecological restoration; or
(c) The use is part of a multiple use project that provides significant public benefit with
respect to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act such as:
(1) Restoration of ecological functions in both in aquatic and upland environments that
shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards for the specific reach
as specified in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, and in
accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan or other plans and policies
including the WRIA 8 Salmon Restoration Plans; or
(2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and
associated buffers shall be provided as public access. Community access may be
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 81
allowed subject to the provisions of subsection E9 of this Section, Residential
Development.
b. Over-Water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of water-
dependent commercial uses that require over-water facilities or for public recreation and public
access facilities. Non-water-dependent commercial uses shall not be allowed over water except in
limited instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in support of water-dependent uses.
c. Setbacks: Public access adjacent to the water may be located within the required setback,
subject to the standards for impervious surface in subsection D7a of this Section, Setbacks, for
non-water-oriented commercial buildings and shall be located no closer than one hundred feet
(100') from the OHWM; provided, this requirement may be modified in accordance with subsection
F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation.
d. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: All new or expanded commercial and community services
developments shall take into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and
compatibility with adjacent uses as provided in subsection D3 of this Section, Use Compatibility and
Aesthetic Effects and subsection D5 of this Section, Building and Development Location –
Shoreline Orientation.
5. Industrial Use:
a. Use Preferences and Priorities: Industrial developments shall be permitted subject to the
following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: New industrial uses in new structures within the required setback of
the shoreline must be water-dependent.
ii. Existing Non-Water-Dependent Uses: Existing non-water-dependent uses may be retained
and expanded, subject to provisions for nonconforming uses activities and sites; provided, that
expansion of structures within the required setback between the building and the water shall be
prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the impacts of the expansion can be mitigated through
on-site measures such as buffer enhancement or low impact stormwater development. Changes
in use are limited to existing structures.
iii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related industrial uses may not be approved if they displace
existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a water-related industrial use, review of the
design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use has a functional requirement
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 82
for a waterfront location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-
dependent uses, and/or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less
expensive and/or more convenient. Allowed water-related commercial uses shall be evaluated
in terms of whether the use facilitates a public interest, including increasing public access and
public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-Water-Oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented industrial uses may be permitted where:
(a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private property in
separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use is
precluded; provided, that such conditions were lawfully established prior to the effective date
of the Shoreline Master Program; or
(b) On a site that abuts the water’s edge where navigability is severely limited (i.e., all
shoreline rivers and creeks) and where the use provides significant public benefit with
respect to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act by:
(1) Restoration of ecological functions in both in aquatic and upland environments that
shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards for the specific reach
as specified in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, and in
accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan and other plans and policies
including the WRIA 8 and 9 Salmon Restoration Plans; or
(2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and
associated buffers shall be provided as public access in accordance with subsection D4
of this Section, Public Access.
b. Clustering of Non-Water-Oriented Uses: Any new use of facility or expansion of existing
facilities shall minimize and cluster those water-dependent and water-related portions of the
development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water-dependent.
c. Over-Water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of water-
dependent industrial uses that require over-water facilities. Any over-water structure is water-
dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is subject to shoreline conditional
use approval.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 83
d. Materials Storage: New industrial development may not introduce exterior storage of materials
outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit subject to the additional criteria that exterior storage is essential to the use.
e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall demonstrate that no spill or discharge to
surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstrate in the permit application a specific
program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial use
and activity.
f. Offshore Log Storage: Offshore log storage shall only be allowed only to serve a processing use
and shall be located where water depth is sufficient without dredging, where water circulation is
adequate to disperse polluting wastes and where they will not provide habitat for salmonid
predators.
g. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: New or expanded industrial developments shall take into
consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with adjacent
uses as provided in subsection D3 of this Section, Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects, and
subsection D5 of this Section, Building and Development Location – Shoreline Orientation.
6. Marinas:
a. Applicability: The standards specified for marinas shall be applied to all development as
described below:
i. Joint use single family docks serving four (4) or more residences.
ii. Any dock allowed for multi-family uses.
iii. Docks serving all other multiple use facilities including large boat launches and mooring buoy
fields.
b. Lake Washington: Marinas on Lake Washington shall be permitted only when:
i. Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that they will not result in a net loss of
ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic processes
including delta formation, or adversely affect native and anadromous fish.
ii. Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 84
iii. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the size and character of moorage
facilities provided in accordance with the parking standards in RMC 4-4-080F. Parking areas not
associated with loading areas shall be sited as far as feasible from the water’s edge and outside
of vegetated buffers described in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation.
iv. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities provided.
v. The location of the moorage facilities is adequately served by public roads.
c. Location Criteria:
i. Marinas shall not be located near beaches commonly used for swimming unless no alternative
location exists, and mitigation is provided to minimize impacts to such areas and protect the
public health, safety, and welfare.
ii. Marinas and accessory uses shall be located only where adequate utility services are
available, or where they can be provided concurrent with the development.
iii. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be designed so that lawfully existing or
planned public shoreline access is not unnecessarily blocked, obstructed, nor made dangerous.
d. Design Requirements:
i. Marinas shall be designed to result in no net loss of ecological functions.
ii. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many water-dependent
recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of the proposal. Features for such
access could include, but are not limited to: docks and piers, pedestrian bridges to offshore
structures, fishing platforms, artificial pocket beaches, and underwater diving and viewing
platforms.
iii. Dry upland boat storage is preferred for permanent moorage in order to protect shoreline
ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space, and minimize consumption of public water
surface areas unless:
(a) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or
(b) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to ecological
functions; or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 85
(c) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the shoreline.
iv. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be located and designed with the minimum
necessary shoreline stabilization.
v. Public access shall be required in accordance with subsection D4 of this Section, Public
Access.
vi. Piers and docks shall meet standards in subsection E7 of this Section, Piers and Docks.
vii. New covered moorage for boat storage is prohibited. Covered over-water structures may be
permitted only where vessel construction or repair work is to be the primary activity and covered
work areas are demonstrated to be the minimum necessary over-water structures. When
feasible any covered over-water structures shall incorporate windows, skylights, or other
materials to allow sufficient light to reach the water’s surface.
e. Operation Requirements:
i. Marinas and other commercial boating activities shall be equipped with facilities to manage
wastes, including:
(a) Marinas with a capacity of one hundred (100) or more boats, or further than one mile
from such facilities, shall provide pump-out, holding, and/or treatment facilities for sewage
contained on boats or vessels.
(b) Discharge of solid waste or sewage into a water body is prohibited. Marinas and boat
launch ramps shall have adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities in compliance
with applicable health regulations.
(c) Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the operator at
locations convenient to users.
(d) Disposal or discarding of fish or shellfish cleaning wastes, scrap fish, viscera, or unused
bait into water or in other than designated garbage receptacles near a marina or launch
ramp is prohibited.
(e) Public notice of all regulations pertaining to handling and disposal of waste, sewage,
fuel, oil or toxic materials shall be reviewed and approved and posted where all users may
easily read them.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 86
ii. Fail safe facilities and procedures for receiving, storing, dispensing, and disposing of oil or
hazardous products, as well as a spill response plan for oil and other products, shall be required
of new marinas and expansion or substantial alteration of existing marinas. Handling of fuels,
chemicals, or other toxic materials must be in compliance with all applicable Federal and State
water quality laws as well as health, safety, and engineering requirements. Rules for spill
prevention and response, including reporting requirements, shall be posted on site.
7. Piers and Docks:
a. General Criteria for Use and Approval of All New or Expanded Piers and Docks:
i. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use and enjoyment
of the water surface and shoreline, nor create a hazard to navigation.
ii. The dock or pier shall not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent
docks and/or piers.
iii. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas
where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and
fishermen will not be created.
iv. The expansion of existing piers and docks is preferred over the construction of new.
v. The responsibility rests on the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the
proposed pier or dock in his/her application for a permit, except for a dock accessory to a single
family residence on an existing lot.
vi. All piers and docks shall result in no net loss of ecological functions. Docks, piers, and
mooring buoys, including those accessory to single family residences, shall avoid, or if that is
not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions such that
no net loss of ecological functions results.
vii. Over-water construction not required for moorage purposes is regulated as a recreation use.
viii. New or expanded piers and docks allowed for water-dependent uses shall be consistent
with the following criteria:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 87
(a) Water-dependent uses shall specify the specific need for over-water location and shall
be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed water-
dependent use.
(b) Water-related, water-enjoyment and multiple uses may be allowed as part of a dock or
pier to serve as water-dependent use structures where they are clearly auxiliary to and in
support of water-dependent uses, provided the minimum size requirement needed to meet
the water-dependent use is not violated.
(c) Public access is required over all docks utilizing public aquatic lands that serve water-
dependent uses, water-enjoyment uses and multiple uses, provided it does not preclude the
water-dependent use.
(d) The dock or pier length shall not extend beyond a length necessary to provide
reasonable and safe moorage.
b. Additional Criteria for New or Expanded Residential Docks:
i. Single Family Docks:
(a) Single Family Joint Use Docks: A pier or dock which is constructed for private recreation
moorage associated with a single family residence, for private joint use by two or more
single family waterfront property owners, or a community pier or dock in new waterfront
single family subdivision, is considered a water-dependent use; provided, that it is designed
and used only as a facility to access watercraft owned by the occupants, and to incidental
use by temporary guests. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by
nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences.
(b) Individual Single Family Docks: The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or
extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have
been met:
(1) A new dock providing for private recreational moorage for an individual lot may not
be permitted in subdivisions approved on or before January 28, 1993, unless shared
moorage is not available, and there is no homeowners association or other corporate
entity capable of developing shared moorage.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 88
(2) A new dock shall not be allowed for an individual lot in cases where a joint use dock
has been constructed to serve the subject lot.
(3) Prior to approval of a new dock for private recreational moorage for an individual lot,
the owner should demonstrate that adjacent owners have been contacted and they have
declined to develop or utilize a shared dock. Such information should be provided in the
project narrative at the time of permit submittal.
(4) A new dock should be approved only in cases where use of a mooring buoy is
demonstrated to be impractical for reducing over-water coverage.
ii. Multi-Family Docks: Multi-family residential use is not considered a water-dependent use
under the Shoreline Management Act and moorage for multi-family residential use shall be
provided only when the following criteria are met:
(a) The dock provides a public benefit of shoreline ecological enhancement in the form of
vegetation conservation buffer enhancement in accordance with subsection F1 of this
Section, Vegetation Conservation, and/or public access in accordance with subsection D4 of
this Section, Public Access;
(b) Moorage at the proposed dock shall be limited to residents of the apartments,
condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built;
(c) Multi-family moorage serving more than four (4) vessels meets the criteria for the
approval of marinas in subsection E6 of this Section, Marinas.
iii. Shared Docks Required for New Development: Shared moorage shall be provided for all new
residential developments of more than two (2) single family dwelling units. New subdivisions
shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual docks. A site for shared
moorage shall be owned in undivided interest by property owners within the subdivision. Shared
moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for community access
and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of the facility. If shared
moorage is provided, the applicant/proponent shall file at the time of plat recordation a legally
enforceable joint use agreement. Approval shall be subject to the following criteria:
(a) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be limited to the amount of moorage
needed to serve lots with water frontage. Shared moorage use by upland property owners
shall be reviewed as a marina.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 89
(b) As few shared docks as possible shall be developed. Development of more than one
dock shall include documentation that a single dock would not accommodate the need or
that adverse impacts on ecological functions would result from the size of dock required.
(c) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys for some or all moorage
needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow tender access to mooring buoys.
(d) Public access shall be provided over all shared docks utilizing public aquatic lands that
accommodate five (5) or more vessels.
c. Design Criteria – General:
i. Pier Type: All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks
may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where
scenic values are high and where one or more of the following conditions exist:
(a) Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling.
(b) A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling.
(c) Bottom conditions that render it not feasible to install piling.
ii. Construction and Maintenance: All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a
safe and sound condition.
iii. Approach: Approaches to piers and docks shall consist of ramps or other structures that span
the entire foreshore to the point of intersection with stable upland soils. Limited fill or excavation
may be allowed landward of the OHWM to match the upland with the elevation of the pier or
dock.
iv. Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair
and maintenance of existing docks shall use materials that will not adversely affect water quality
or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Materials used for submerged portions of a
pier or dock, decking, and other components that may come in contact with water shall be
approved by applicable State agencies for use in water to avoid discharge of pollutants from
wave splash, rain or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other similarly
toxic materials is prohibited. Pilings shall be constructed of untreated materials, such as
untreated wood, approved plastic composites, concrete or steel.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 90
v. Pilings: Pile spacing shall be the maximum feasible to minimize shading and avoid a “wall”
effect that would block or baffle wave patterns, currents, littoral drift, or movement of aquatic life
forms, or result in structure damage from driftwood impact or entrapment. The first piling set
shall be spaced at the maximum distance feasible to minimize shading and shall be no less than
eighteen feet (18'). Pilings beyond the first set of piles shall minimize the size of the piles and
maximize the spacing between pilings to the extent allowed by site-specific engineering or
design considerations.
vi. Minimization of Nearshore Impacts: In order to minimize impacts on nearshore areas and
avoid reduction in ambient light level:
(a) The width of piers, docks, and floats shall be the minimum necessary to serve the
proposed use.
(b) Ramps shall span as much of the nearshore as feasible.
(c) Dock surfaces shall be designed to allow light penetration.
(d) Lights shall avoid illuminating the water surface. Lighting facilities shall be limited to the
minimum extent necessary to locate the pier or dock at night for docks serving residential
uses. Lighting to serve water-dependent uses shall be the minimum required to
accommodate the use and may not be used when the water-dependent aspects of the use
are not in operation.
vii. Covered Moorage: Covered moorage is not allowed on any moorage facility unless
translucent materials are used that allow light penetration through the canopy, or through the
roof of legal, pre-existing boat houses. Temporary vessel covers must be attached to the vessel.
New boat houses are not allowed.
viii. Seaplane Moorage: Seaplane moorage may be accommodated at any dock that meets the
standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Other Agency Requirements: If deviation from the design standards specified in subsection
E7 of this Section, Piers and Docks, is approved by another agency with permitting authority,
such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it
shall be approved with a variance, subject to all conditions and requirements of those permitting
agencies.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 91
d. Design Standards:
Single Family Joint Use and
Community Docks
Commercial and
Industrial Docks –
Water-Dependent
Uses
Non-Water-
Dependent Uses
WHEN ALLOWED
Maximum of
one pier or dock
per developed
waterfront lot or
ownership.
A joint use dock may
be constructed for two
(2) or more
contiguous waterfront
properties and may
be located on a side
property line, or
straddling a side
property line, common
to both properties or
be provided with an
access easement for
all lots served.1
Joint use docks or
piers serving more
than four (4)
residences shall be
regulated as marinas.
Water-dependent
commercial and
industrial uses may
develop docks and
piers to the extent that
they are required for
water-dependent use.
Public access shall be
provided in
accordance with
subsection D4 of this
Section, Public
Access.
Docks are not allowed
unless they provide
public access or
public water
recreation use. Such
docks and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection E8 of this
Section, Recreation.
LENGTH – MAXIMUM
Docks and
Piers
Minimum
needed to
provide
moorage for a
single family
residence, a
maximum of
one ell and two
(2) fingers.
Maximum: 80 ft.
from OHWM.2
Minimum needed to
provide moorage for
the single family
residences or
community being
served. Maximum: 80
ft. from OHWM.2
Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application. Maximum:
120 ft. from OHWM.2
Facilities adjacent to a
designated harbor
area: The dock or pier
may extend to the
lesser of:
a) The general
standard, above; or
b) The inner harbor
line or such point
beyond the inner
harbor line as is
allowed by formal
authorization by the
Docks are not allowed
unless they provide
public access or
public water
recreation use. Such
docks and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection E8 of this
Section, Recreation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 92
Single Family Joint Use and
Community Docks
Commercial and
Industrial Docks –
Water-Dependent
Uses
Non-Water-
Dependent Uses
Washington State
Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) or
other agency with
jurisdiction.
Ells and
Fingers
26 ft. 26 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Floats 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
WIDTH
Docks and
Piers
4 ft.4 6 ft. Maximum walkway: 8
ft., but 12 ft. if
vehicular access is
required for the
approved use.3
Docks are not allowed
unless they provide
public access or
public water
recreation use. Such
docks and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection E8 of this
Section, Recreation.
Ells and
Floats
6 ft. 6 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Fingers 2 ft. 2 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 93
Single Family Joint Use and
Community Docks
Commercial and
Industrial Docks –
Water-Dependent
Uses
Non-Water-
Dependent Uses
Ramp
Connecting
a Pier/Dock
to a Float
3 ft. for
walkway, 4 ft.
total
3 ft. for walkway, 4 ft.
total
Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
PILINGS – MAXIMUMS
Mooring
Piles
Two (2) piles,
up to 12 in. in
diameter,
installed within
24 ft. of a dock
or pier and out
of the nearshore
area.
Four (4) piles, up to
12 in. in diameter,
installed within 24 ft.
of a dock or pier and
out of the nearshore
area.
Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Docks are not allowed
unless they provide
public access or
public water
recreation use. Such
docks and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection E8 of this
Section, Recreation.
SETBACKS – MINIMUMS
Side
Setback
No portion of a
pier or dock
may lie closer
than 5 ft. to an
adjacent
property line
and may not
interfere with
navigation.
No portion of a pier or
dock may lie closer
than 5 ft. to an
adjacent property line
and may not interfere
with navigation.
No portion of a pier or
dock may lie closer
than 30 ft. to an
adjacent property line.
Docks are not allowed
unless they provide
public access or
public water
recreation use. Such
docks and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection E8 of this
Section, Recreation.
Table Notes:
1. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be executed and recorded with the King
County Assessor’s Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of permits. A copy of the recorded
agreement shall be provided to the City. Such documents shall specify ownership rights and
maintenance provisions, including: specifying the parcels to which the agreement shall apply;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 94
providing that the dock shall be owned jointly by the participating parcels and that the ownership
shall run with the land; providing for easements to access the dock from each lot served and
provide for access for maintenance; providing apportionment of construction and maintenance
expenses; and providing a means for resolution of disputes, including arbitration and filing of liens
and assessments.
2. Maximum length is eighty feet (80') unless a depth of ten feet (10') cannot be obtained. In such
circumstances the dock may be extended until the water depth reaches a point of ten feet (10') in
depth at ordinary low water.
3. Additional width may be allowed to accommodate public access in addition to the water-
dependent use.
4. That portion of a pier or dock beyond thirty feet (30') from OHWM may be up to six feet (6')
wide, without a variance, if approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife; or a pier or dock may be six feet (6') wide, waterward from land,
without a variance, if the property owner qualifies for State disabled accommodations.
e. Maintenance and Repair of Docks: Existing docks or piers that do not comply with these
regulations may be repaired in accordance with the criteria below.
i. When the repair and/or replacement of the surface area exceeds thirty percent (30%) of the
surface area of the dock/pier, light penetrating materials must be used for all replacement
decking. For floating docks, light penetrating materials shall be used where feasible, and as long
as the structural integrity of the dock is maintained.
ii. When the repair involves replacement of the surfacing materials only, there is no requirement
to bring the dock/pier into conformance with dimensional standards of this Section.
iii. When the repair/replacement involves the replacement of more than fifty percent (50%) of the
pilings, or more, the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations. For
floating docks, when the repair/replacement involves replacement of more than fifty percent
(50%) of the total supporting structure (including floats, pilings, or cross-bars), the entire
structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
iv. When the existing dock/pier is moved or expanded or the shape reconfigured, the entire
structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 95
f. Buoy and Float Regulations:
i. Buoys Preferred: The use of buoys for moorage is preferable to piers, docks, or floats and
buoys may be sited under a shoreline exemption instead of a Substantial Development Permit,
provided they do not exceed the cost threshold.
ii. Floats: Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions:
(a) The float is served by a dock attached to the shore for use of only a tender. The dock
shall be the minimum length to allow access to a tender and may not exceed a length of
forty feet (40').
(b) Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft.
(c) Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float
proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred and
fifty (150) square feet per residence. Floats for public use shall be sized in order to provide
for the specific intended use and shall be limited to the minimum size necessary.
(d) A single family residence may only have one float.
(e) Floats shall not be located a distance of more than eighty feet (80') beyond the OHWM,
except public recreation floats.
g. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions:
i. Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted
as a shoreline variance application, unless otherwise specified.
ii. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed subject to findings that a
variance request complies with:
(a) The general criteria for shoreline variance approval in RMC 4-9-190I4.
(b) The additional criteria that the allowed dock or pier cannot reasonably provide the
purpose for which it is intended without specific dimensions to serve specific aspects of a
water-dependent use.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 96
(c) Meets the general criteria for all new and expanded piers and docks in subsection E7a of
this Section.
8. Recreation:
a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-site mitigation.
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and are
consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to the
ecological features and shoreline environment.
iv. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing wilderness
beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the public in accordance with
RCW 90.58.100(4).
b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a
substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the shoreline.
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be
located on the shoreline.
ii. Water-related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the
shoreline.
iii. Non-water-related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational facilities with large
grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with extensive impervious
surfaces shall observe vegetation management standards providing for native vegetation buffer
areas along the shoreline.
c. Over-Water Structures: Over-water structures for recreation use shall be allowed only when:
i. They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the
State.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 97
ii. They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity, especially
aquatic and wildlife habitat areas.
iii. They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they provide limited
opportunities to approach the water’s edge in areas where public access is set back to protect
sensitive ecological features at the water’s edge.
iv. No net loss of ecological functions will result.
d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the
following criteria are considered:
i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the
shoreline are protected.
ii. Accessibility to the water’s edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in
consideration of natural features.
iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of
the local community.
iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and uses
are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the
adjoining property.
vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed
public use.
vii. Effects on private property are consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal
limitations on regulation or acquisition of private property.
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance
between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the
shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process that
provides for a balance of these elements.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 98
e. Private Recreation:
i. Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from public aquatic lands are
prohibited. Private recreation uses that utilize public aquatic lands shall provide public access in
accordance with criteria in subsection D4 of this Section, Public Access.
ii. Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the following
standards are met:
(a) There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-site.
(b) There is reasonable public access provided to the shoreline at no fee for sites providing
recreational uses that are fee supported, including access along the water’s edge where
appropriate. In the case of Lake Washington, significant public access shall be provided in
accordance with public access criteria in subsection D4 of this Section, Public Access.
(c) The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent parcels and
uses.
(d) Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from
pedestrian paths are provided.
(e) Recreational uses are encouraged in multiple use commercial development.
9. Residential Development:
a. Single Family Priority Use and Other Residential Uses: Single family residences are a priority
on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020). All other residential uses
are subject to the preference for water-oriented use and must provide for meeting the requirements
for ecological restoration and/or public access.
b. General Criteria: Residential developments shall be allowed only when:
i. Density and other characteristics of the development are consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
ii. Residential structures shall provide setbacks and buffers as provided in subsection D7a of
this Section, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under subsection F1 of this Section,
Vegetation Conservation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 99
c. Public Access Required: Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety, or environmental
concerns, new single family residential developments, including subdivision of land for ten (10) or
more parcels, shall provide public access in accordance with subsection D4 of this Section, Public
Access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-
family developments shall provide a significant public benefit such as providing public access
and/or ecological restoration along the water’s edge. For such proposed development, a community
access plan may be used to satisfy the public access requirement if the following written findings
are made by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee:
i. The community access plan allows for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline;
and
ii. The balance of the waterfront not devoted to public and/or community access shall be
devoted to ecological restoration.
d. Shoreline Stabilization Prohibited: New residential development shall not require new
shoreline stabilization. Developable portions of lots shall not be subject to flooding or require
structural flood hazard reduction measures within a channel migration zone or floodway to support
intended development during the life of the development or use. Prior to approval, geotechnical
analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics shall demonstrate that new shoreline stabilization
is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to support intended development during the life of the
development or use.
e. Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions for critical areas including
avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas,
riparian and marine shoreline erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable development standards.
Setbacks from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures during the life of the structure (one
hundred (100) years).
f. Vegetation Conservation: All new residential lots shall meet vegetation conservation provisions
in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, including the full required buffer area
together with replanting and control of invasive species within buffers to ensure establishment and
continuation of a vegetation community characteristic of a native climax community. Each lot must
be able to support intended development without encroachment on vegetation conservation areas,
except for public trains and other uses allowed within such areas. Areas within vegetation
conservation areas shall be placed in common or public ownership when feasible.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 100
g. New Private Docks Restricted: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on new private
docks on the face of the plat. An area reserved for shared moorage may be designated if it meets
all requirements of the Shoreline Master Program including demonstration that public and private
marinas and other boating facilities are not sufficient to meet the moorage needs of the subdivision.
h. Floating Residences Prohibited: Floating residences are prohibited.
10. Transportation:
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve no
net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the following
standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities:
i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water
interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of
system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or
set back further from the land/water interface.
ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological,
or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural
movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals
over the life of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as
to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal
materials.
v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using
bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other
features that provide for these functions.
vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including,
but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 101
b. Roads:
i. New public or private roads and driveways shall be located inland from the land/water
interface, preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are required for access to authorized uses consistent with
the Shoreline Master Program; or
(b) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian and nonmotorized use and provide an
opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy shoreline areas, and are consistent
with policies and regulations for ecological protection.
ii. Road locations shall be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in order that minimum
alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary.
iii. RCW 36.87.130 prohibits vacation of any right-of -way that abuts freshwater except for port,
recreational, educational or industrial purposes. Therefore, development, abandonment, or
alteration of undeveloped road ends within Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction is prohibited
unless an alternate use is approved in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program.
c. Railroads: New or expanded railroads shall be located inland from the land/water interface and
out of the shoreline where feasible. Expansion of the number of rails on an existing right-of-way
shall be accompanied by meeting the vegetation conservation provisions for moderate expansion of
nonconforming uses in RMC 4-10-095, Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities,
Structures and Sites.
d. Trails:
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological
functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in
the design of shoreline trails.
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property
owners including privacy and noise.
iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 102
(a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other water
bodies.
(b) For interpretive facilities.
(c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at grade
trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface and
groundwater movement.
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface
trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the
number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in
less ecologically sensitive areas.
e. Parking:
i. When Allowed: Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed
only as necessary to serve an authorized primary use.
ii. Public Parking:
(a) In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be provided at
frequent locations on public streets, at shoreline viewpoints, and at trailheads.
(b) Public parking facilities shall be located as far as feasible from the shoreline unless
parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved recreation and public
access. In general, only handicapped disabled parking should be located near the
land/water interface with most other parking located within walking distance and outside of
vegetation conservation buffers provided in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation
Conservation.
(c) Public parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact
upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view.
iii. Private Parking:
(a) Private parking facilities should be located away from the shoreline unless parking areas
close to the water are essential to serve approved uses and/or developments. When sited
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 103
within shoreline jurisdiction, parking shall be located inland away from the land/water
interface and landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses.
(b) Surface parking areas shall be located and designed to minimize visual impacts as
viewed from the shoreline and from views of the shoreline from upland properties.
(c) Parking structures shall be located outside of shoreline vegetation conservation buffers
and behind or within the first row of buildings between the water and the developed portions
of a site and designed such that the frontage visible from the shoreline accommodates other
uses and parked cars are not visible from that frontage.
(d) Parking lot design, landscaping and lighting shall be governed by the provisions of
chapter 4-4 RMC and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
f. Aviation:
i. Prohibited Near Natural or Urban Conservancy Areas: Aviation facilities are prohibited within
two hundred feet (200') of a Natural or Urban Conservancy Shoreline Overlay District.
ii. Airports:
(a) A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline; however, an airport
already located within a shoreline shall be permitted.
(b) Upgrades of facilities to meet FAA requirements or improvements in technology shall be
permitted.
(c) Facilities to serve seaplanes may be included as an accessory use in any existing
airport.
(d) Helipads may be included as an accessory use in any existing airport.
(e) Aviation-related manufacturing shall be permitted in an airport.
(f) New or upgraded airport facilities shall be designed and operated such that:
(1) All facilities that are non-water-dependent shall be located outside of shoreline
jurisdiction, if feasible. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or
developments such as parking, hangars, service buildings or areas, access roads,
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 104
utilities, signs, and storage of materials shall be located as far from the land/water
interface as feasible. The minimum setback shall be twenty feet (20') from the OHWM of
the shoreline and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from
the area along the water’s edge.
(2) New or upgraded airport facilities shall minimize impacts on shoreline ecological
functions, including control of pollutant discharge. The standards for water quality and
criteria for application shall be those in current stormwater control regulations.
(3) New facilities dispensing fuel or facilities associated with use of hazardous materials
shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
iii. Seaplanes:
(a) Private:
(1) Operation of a single private seaplane on waters where FAA has designated a
seaplane landing area is not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program.
(2) Moorage of a seaplane is addressed in subsection E7 of this Section, Piers and
Docks.
(b) Commercial: New commercial seaplane facilities, including docks and storage area
bases, may be allowed in industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous to
residential areas and provided they meet standards in subsection E7 of this Section, Piers
and Docks.
iv. Helicopter Landing Facilities:
(a) Private: Establishment of a helipad on a single family residential lot is allowed subject to
the standards of RMC 4-2-080A111. Conditions shall be imposed to mitigate impacts within
the shoreline.
(b) Commercial: New commercial heliports, including those accessory to allowed uses, are
allowed by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, subject to the standards of the Shoreline
Master Program.
v. New Seaplane Facilities and Heliports – Criteria for Approval:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 105
(a) Review shall include consideration of location approval in terms of compatibility with
affected uses including short- and long-term noise impacts, impacts on habitat areas of
endangered or threatened species, environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, and
migration routes:
(1) On adjacent parcels; and
(2) On over-flight areas.
(b) Conditions shall be imposed to mitigate impacts within the shoreline and also non-
shoreline over flight and related impacts.
11. Utilities:
a. Criteria for All Utilities:
i. Local utility services needed to serve water-dependent and other permitted uses in the
shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection and visual compatibility.
ii. Major utility systems shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, to the extent feasible,
except for elements that are water-dependent and crossings of water bodies and other elements
of shorelands by linear facilities.
iii. New public or private utilities shall be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably
out of shoreline jurisdiction, unless:
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or
(b) Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses consistent with the Shoreline Master
Program.
iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cables and other facilities on land running roughly
parallel to the shoreline shall be located as far from the water’s edge as feasible and preferably
outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other facilities on aquatic lands
running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may require periodic maintenance that would
disrupt shoreline ecological functions shall be discouraged except where no other feasible
alternative exists. When permitted, provisions shall assure that the facilities do not result in a net
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 106
loss of shoreline ecological functions or significant impacts to other shoreline resources and
values.
vi. Utilities shall be located in existing rights-of-way and corridors, whenever reasonably
feasible.
vii. Local service utilities serving new development shall be located underground, wherever
reasonably feasible.
viii. Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or located in other existing
facilities, if reasonably feasible. If new installations are required to cross water bodies or
wetlands they should avoid disturbing banks and streambeds and shall be designed to avoid the
need for shoreline stabilization. Crossings shall be tunneled or bored where reasonably feasible.
Installations shall be deep enough to avoid failures or need for protection due to exposure due
to streambed mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration. Underwater utilities shall be placed
in a sleeve if reasonably feasible to avoid the need for excavation in the event of the need for
maintenance or replacement.
ix. In areas where utility installations would be anticipated to significantly alter natural
groundwater flows, a barrier or conduit to impede changes to natural flow characteristics shall
be provided.
x. Excavated materials from construction of utilities shall be disposed of outside of the
vegetation conservation buffer except if utilized for ecological restoration and shall be specified
in submittal materials.
xi. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic, archaeological or cultural
resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate adverse impacts where unavoidable.
xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to result in no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions with appropriate on- and off-site mitigation including
compensatory mitigation.
xiii. All utility development shall be consistent with and coordinated with all local government
and State planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose plans to meet the needs
of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 107
xiv. Site planning and rights-of-way for utility development should provide for compatible
multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other appropriate use whenever
possible. Utility right-of-way acquisition should be coordinated with transportation and recreation
planning.
xv. Vegetation Conservation:
(a) Native vegetation shall be maintained whenever reasonably feasible.
(b) When utility projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed area shall be
restored as nearly as possible to the original condition.
(c) All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of service
trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs.
xvi. A structure or other facility enclosing a telephone exchange, sewage pumping or other
facility, an electrical substation, or other above ground public utility built in the shoreline area
shall be:
(a) Housed in a building that shall conform architecturally with the surrounding buildings and
area or with the type of building that will develop as provided by the zoning district and
applicable design standards.
(b) An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform
with the standards above shall be sight-screened in accordance with RMC 4-4-095 with
evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to form an
effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years.
(c) An unhoused installation of a potentially hazardous nature, such as an electrical
distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight (8) foot high open wire fence, or
masonry wall. Such installations shall be sight-screened in accordance with RMC 4-4-
095 with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to
form an effective and actual sight barrier, except at entrance gate(s), within five (5) years.
b. Special Considerations for Pipelines:
i. Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of adjacent water
courses and shorelines.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 108
ii. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of aquatic life nor shall water quality
standards be violated.
iii. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff valves at
each side of the water crossing.
iv. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with the
regulations of the Washington State Transportation Commission and subject to review by the
City Public Works Department.
c. Major Utilities – Specifications:
i. Electrical Installations:
(a) Overhead High Voltage Power Lines:
(1) Overhead electrical transmission lines of fifty-five (55) kV and greater voltage within
the shoreline shall be relocated to a route outside of the shoreline, where feasible when:
• Such facilities are upgraded to a higher voltage.
• Additional lines are placed within the corridor.
(2) The support structures for new overhead power lines shall be designed to avoid or
minimize impacts to shoreline areas.
(b) Underwater electrical transmission lines shall be located and designed to:
(1) Utilize existing transportation or utility corridors where feasible.
(2) Avoid adverse impacts to navigation.
(3) Be posted with warning signs.
(c) Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall be:
(1) Located outside of the shoreline, where feasible, and may be located within a
shoreland location only when the applicant proves no other site out of the shoreland
area exists.
(2) Located as far as feasible from the land/water interface.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 109
(3) Screened as required by in the criteria for all utilities, above.
ii. Communications: This Section applies to telephone exchanges including radar transmission
installations, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, wireless communication
facilities and any other facility for the transmission of communication signals.
(a) Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there
exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area.
(b) All structures shall meet the screening requirements in the criteria for all utilities, above.
(c) If approved within the shoreline, such installations shall reduce aesthetic impacts by
locations as far as possible from residential, recreational, and commercial activities.
(d) Cellular communication facilities may be located in the shoreline only when mounted on
buildings and screened by architectural features compatible with the design of the building.
iii. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground projects are
completed on the bank of a water body or in the shoreland or a shoreline, the disturbed area
shall be restored to the original configuration. Underground utility installations shall be permitted
only when the finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such areas.
iv. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian public access to
utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public. Where
utility rights-of-way are located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies shall be
encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use areas for the adjacent
public use area. As a condition of location of new utilities within the shoreline, the City may
require provision of pedestrian public access.
v. All-Inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than one major utility to go along
the same general route, the common use of a single utility right-of-way is strongly encouraged.
It would be desirable to include railroad lines within this right-of-way also.
d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications:
i. Electrical Distribution: New electrical distribution lines within the shoreline shall be placed
underground; provided, that distribution lines that cross water or other critical areas may be
allowed to be placed above ground if:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 110
(a) There is no feasible alternative route.
(b) Underground installation would substantially disrupt ecological functions and processes
of water bodies and wetlands; horizontal drilling or similar technology that does not disturb
the surface is not feasible.
(c) Visual impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
(d) If overhead facilities require prevent that native trees and other vegetation cannot to be
maintained in a vegetation conservation buffer as provided in subsection F1 of this Section,
Vegetation Conservation, compensatory mitigation shall be provided on- or off-site.
ii. Water Lines:
(a) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlands or other critical areas unless there is no
reasonably feasible alternative route.
(b) Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in
accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines.
iii. Sanitary Sewer:
(a) The use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. Self-contained outhouses may be allowed
for temporary, seasonal, or special events.
(b) All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic tanks or
other on-site sewage disposal systems.
(c) Sewage trunk lines, interceptors, pump stations, treatment plants, and other components
that are not water-dependent shall be located away from shorelines unless:
(1) Alternative locations, including alternative technology, are demonstrated to be
infeasible.
(2) The facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(3) The facilities do not result in significant impacts to other shoreline resources and
values such as parks and recreation facilities, public access and archaeological, historic,
and cultural resources, and aesthetic resources.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 111
(d) Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system.
(e) During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be allowed only
until proper plumbing facilities are completed.
(f) All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Public Works
Department.
iv. Stormwater Management:
(a) The City will work with private property owners and other jurisdictions to maintain,
enhance and restore natural drainage systems to protect water quality, reduce flooding,
reduce public costs and prevent associated environmental degradation to contribute to the
goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(b) All new development shall meet current stormwater management requirements for
detention and treatment.
(c) Individual single family residences may be subject to water quality management
requirements to ensure the quality of adjacent water bodies.
(d) Stormwater ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as far from the water’s edge as
feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservation buffers.
(e) The location design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit impacts on
receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, State, and Federal requirements.
Infiltration of stormwater shall be preferred, where reasonably feasible.
(f) Stormwater management may include a low impact development stormwater conveyance
system in the vegetation buffer, if the system is designed to mimic the function and
appearance of a natural shoreline system and complies with all other requirements and
standards of subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation.
v. Solid Waste Facilities:
(a) Facilities for processing, storage, and disposal of solid waste are not normally water-
dependent. Components that are not water-dependent shall not be permitted on shorelines.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 112
(b) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies has the potential for severe
adverse effects upon ecological functions, property values, public health, natural resources,
and local aesthetic values and shall not be permitted.
(c) Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as an accessory
use to a primary permitted use, or for litter control.
F. SHORELINE MODIFICATION:
1. Vegetation Conservation:
a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in this Section
the Shoreline Master Program, water bodies defined as shorelines shall have a minimum one
hundred foot (100') vegetation management buffer measured from the OHWM of the regulated
shoreline of the State. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured
perpendicular to the OHWM from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream.
b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee may apply the following vegetation buffers
provided for in Table 4-3-090F1l, Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, as an alternative to
the standard vegetation conservation buffer for sites for development that implement water-oriented
use and public access as provided in the table for each reach.
c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots:
i. Reserved. i. Modified Requirements Based on Lot Depth: The Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee shall apply the following vegetation
buffers and building setbacks for existing single family residences and existing single family lots
consisting of property under contiguous ownership without a variance. Lot depth shall be
measured from the OHWM in a perpendicular direction to the edge of the contiguously owned
parcel or to an easement containing existing physical improvements for road access for two (2)
or more lots.
Lot Depth
Building
Setback
Vegetated
Buffer
Greater than 130 feet 45 feet 20 feet
100 feet, up to 130 feet 35 feet 15 feet
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 113
Lot Depth
Building
Setback
Vegetated
Buffer
Less than 100 feet 25 feet 10 feet
ii. Setback Modifications for Site Improvements: Existing single family residences on existing
single family lots subject to the building setback standards in subsection F1ci of this Section
may Table 4-3-090D7a may further reduce their building setback than stated in Table 4-3-
090D7a by making one or more of the site improvements listed below,. In no case shall
provided that the building setback shall not be reduced to less than twenty five feet (25').from
the minimum buffer. The reduced setback and site improvement shall be recorded in a covenant
approved by the City Attorney. The site improvement shall be maintained by the property owner.
(a) The building setback shall be reduced by five feet (5') for every two hundred fifty (250)
square feet of existing impervious surface removed. from lands within the building setback
or minimum buffer.
(b) The building setback shall be reduced for properties that agree to reduce limit future
impervious coverage to a standard lower than the standard in subsection D7a of this
Section, Shoreline Bulk Standards. The reductions shall be five feet (5') for every two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of future impervious surface coverage that is limited, and
recorded as a maximum impervious coverage standard (in percent), rounded down to the
nearest whole number.
(c) Properties that replace existing rigid shoreline stabilization with preferred alternatives
under subsection F4aiii of this Section, Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy, shall
qualify for a setback reduction that correlates with the degree in improvement in ecological
function and value that is expected to result from the change, as reported in a standard
stream/lake study.
(d) Properties that propose projects to improve habitat functions and values shall qualify for
a setback reduction that correlates with the degree in improvement in ecological function
and value that is expected to result from the project, as reported in a standard stream/lake
study.
iii. Modifications for Narrow Lots: For such single family residential lots with a lot width of less
than sixty feet (60'), setbacks and the buffers may be reduced by ten percent (10%), but shall
be no less than:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 114
(a) Building setback: twenty five feet (25').
(b) Vegetated buffer: fifteen feet (15').
iv. Other Setbacks May Be Reduced: Modification from the front and side yard standards may
be granted administratively if needed to meet the established setback from the OHWM, as
specified in this Section, and if standard variance criteria are met in RMC 4-9-250B, Variances.
d. Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width:
i. Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or Designee May
Reduce: Based upon an applicant’s request, the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/
or setbacks where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsections
below. Buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat
sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics.
ii. Water-Dependent Uses:
(a) Areas approved for water-dependent use or public access may be excluded from
vegetated the buffer if the approval is granted through review of a Substantial Development
Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or variance; provided, that the area excluded is the
minimum needed to provide for the water-dependent use or public access.
(b) Access to private docks through a vegetated buffer may be provided by a corridor up to
six feet (6') wide.
iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Vegetated bBuffers specified for areas
enumerated in Table 4-3-090F1l, Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, shall be
applied in accordance with those provisions.
iv. Buffer and Setback Reduction Standards: Based Except for single family residential uses in
the High Intensity and Single Family Environments, based upon an applicant’s request, and the
acceptance of a standard stream or lake study, the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard
buffer widths/ or setbacks by up to fifty percent (50%) if within the High Intensity Overlay or by
up to twenty-five percent (25%) in all other shoreline overlays except when the buffer
widths/setbacks are established by subsection F1c of this Section, Alternative Vegetated Buffer
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 115
Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots, where the applicant can demonstrate
compliance with applicable criteria in the subsections below:
(a) The proposal complies with either of will reduce non-native invasive species to less than
five percent (5%) and result in extensive native vegetation in the following two (2) criteria:
(1) The remaining area of the proposed reduced-width buffer is already extensively
vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than five percent
(5%) non-native invasive species cover; or.
(2) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer can be enhanced with native
vegetation and removal of non-native species; and
(b) The proposed project, with width reduction, will result in no net loss of ecological
functions as consistent with subsection D2a of this Section, No Net Loss of Ecological
Functions; and
(c) Reduction of the buffer /or setback shall not create the need for rigid shoreline
stabilization as described in subsections F4aiii(d) and (e) of this Section, Shoreline
Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy; and
(d) The reduction shall not create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to other
property in the vicinity.
(e) Review Procedures:
(1) Buffer reductions in the High Intensity Overlay shall be approved by the Administrator
of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee processed as
part of a Substantial Development Permit. Buffer reductions in all other shoreline
overlays shall be processed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to
RMC 4-9-190I, Variances and Conditional Uses.
(2) Written findings shall be made required to demonstrate that the buffer reduction
substantially implements the criteria of this Section.
v. Buffer Reductions for the Conversion on Nonconforming Uses: Based upon an applicant’s
request, and the City’s acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, the Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 116
reduction in the standard buffer in a case where if an existing nonconforming site is not
redeveloped and but the proposal includes removal of existing over-water structures, or removal
or reconstruction of shoreline protection structures, or other restoration of shorelines or buffer
areas in a manner that meets the standards of the Shoreline Master Program, and results in to a
vegetated buffer a minimum ten feet (10') from existing buildings or impervious surface (e.g.,
such as parking areas and driveways in current use to serve the nonconforming buildings or
uses).
e. Increased Buffer Widths: Vegetated bBuffers may be increased by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee as required or allowed by if the
criteria below are met.
i. Areas of High Blow-Down Potential: Where the stream/lake area is in an area of high blow-
down potential as determined by a qualified professional, the buffer width may be expanded up
to an additional fifty feet (50') on the windward side, when determined appropriate to site
circumstances and ecological function by the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High Landslide Areas: When the required
stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area or buffer, the
stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the very high
landslide hazard buffer.
f. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant’s request, and the acceptance of a standard stream or
lake study, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee may approve buffer width averaging except where specific vegetation buffers in Table
4-3-090F1l, Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, are stated.
ii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the applicant
demonstrates all of the following:
(a) The water body and associated riparian area contain variations in ecological sensitivity
or there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated
riparian area;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 117
(b) Buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological
function;
(c) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained
within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging;
(d) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less than fifty feet (50');
(e) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905, or where there is an absence of valid scientific information.
The steps in RMC 4-9-250F shall be followed.
g. Buffer Enhancement: Buffer enhancement as a separate action may be proposed on any
property and may be implemented without full compliance with the standards of this Section;
provided, that the project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and provides
documentation that the enhanced buffer area will maintain or improve the functional attributes of the
buffer. Any change to existing nonconforming facilities or use on a site shall meet the provisions for
nonconforming sites.
h. Exemption Criteria: As determined by the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee, for development proposed on sites separated from the
shoreline by intervening, and lawfully created, public roads, railroads, other off-site substantial
existing improvements, or an intervening parcel under separate ownership, the requirements of this
Code for a vegetation buffer may be waived. For the purposes of this Section, the intervening
lots/parcels, roads, or other substantial improvements shall be found to:
i. Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or width; and
ii. Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most ecological functions from the subject upland
property to the water body.
i. Vegetation Management: Vegetation adjacent to water bodies in the shoreline shall be managed
to provide the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with these standards:
i. Streams and lakes with vegetation conservation buffer areas that are largely undisturbed
native vegetation shall be retained except where the buffer is to be enhanced or where
alteration is allowed in conformance with this Section for a specific development proposal.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 118
ii. In the absence of a development proposal, existing, lawfully established landscaping and
gardens within a vegetation conservation buffer may be maintained in their existing condition
including but not limited to mowing lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and invasive species,
harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting of ornamental
vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas
as they existed prior to adoption of this Code, provided this does not apply to areas previously
established as native growth protection areas, mitigation sites, or other areas protected via
conservation easements or similar restrictive covenants.
iii. Removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species may be allowed without permit review in
any vegetation conservation buffer area; provided, that removal consists of physical uprooting or
chemical treatment of individual plants or shallow excavation of no more than one thousand
(1,000) square feet of dense infestations.
iv. Removal or pruning of dangerous trees located in a buffer requires a routine vegetation
management permit.
iv. New development or redevelopment of nonconforming uses shall develop and implement a
vegetation management plan that complies with the standards of this Code. Unless otherwise
provided, a vegetation management plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation
within the specified vegetation buffer. If a low impact development stormwater system is
proposed in accordance with subsection E11div(f) of this Section, it must be included in the
vegetation management plan. When required, vegetation management plans shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; provided, that the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee may establish prescriptive standards for vegetation
conservation and management as an alternative to requiring a specific plan for a development.
Vegetation management plans shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that
buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to
the extent possible. Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or
development. For private development a conservation easement or similar recorded legal
restriction shall be recorded to ensure preservation of the vegetation conservation and
management area.
vi. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee
may approve, in cases of redevelopment or alteration of existing single family residential lots, a
vegetation management plan that does not include large native trees, if such trees would block
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 119
more than thirty percent (30%) of existing water views allowed from the existing residence on a
lot. Native vegetation consisting of groundcover, shrubs and small trees shall be provided to
provide as many of the vegetation functions feasible. This provision shall not apply to new lots
created by subdivision or other means.
j. Documentation:
i. Provisions of subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, as they pertain to
existing single family residences and lots, determinations and evidence shall be included in the
application file.
ii. For all development requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, findings and
determinations regarding the application of increased or reduced buffer width shall be included
as specific findings in the permit.
iii. For development not requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, approval of a
reduced buffer width shall require review as a shoreline variance by the Hearing Examiner per
RMC 4-9-190. The setback provisions of the zoning district for the use must also be met unless
a variance to the zoning code is achieved.
k. Off-Site Vegetation Conservation Fund: The City shall provide a fund for off-site provision of
areas for vegetation conservation. The Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee shall assess charges to new development that has been
granted a shoreline variance because the vegetation conservation buffer requirement under
subsection D7a of this Section, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under subsection F1 of
this Section, Vegetation Conservation, cannot be met on-site. The Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee shall also assess charges to existing
development subject to major alteration in which on-site shoreline stabilization mitigation, if
required, is infeasible according to RMC 4-10-095F, Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an
Existing Structure or Site. Credit shall be given for areas of vegetation buffer on the shoreline
provided by development. Expenditures from such a fund for provision of areas where the functions
of shoreline vegetation conservation would be provided shall be in accordance with the restoration
plan or other watershed and aquatic habitat conservation plans and shall be spent within the WRIA
in which the assessed property is located.
l. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Standards by Reach: The following table identifies the
performance standards for maintenance and restoration of the vegetation conservation buffer and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 120
shall be applied if required by the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline
Master Program.
Table 4-3-090F1l – Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A and B
This developed primarily single family area provides primarily lawn and
ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing
adverse impacts shall be implemented through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring
with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Lake Washington
Reach C
If areas redevelop, the full one hundred foot (100') buffer of native
vegetation shall be provided, except where water-dependent uses are
located. Buffer averaging, pursuant to subsection F1f of this Section,
may be used if consistent with a NOAA Natural Resources Damage
Settlement and approved by the U.S. EPA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Lake Washington
Reach D and E
This developed primarily single family area provides primarily lawn and
ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing
adverse impacts shall be implemented through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring
with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Lake Washington
Reach F
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as
part of park management, balanced with opportunities to provide public
visual and physical access to the shoreline. The City may fund
shoreline enhancement through fees paid for off -site mitigation from
development elsewhere on Lake Washington.
Lake Washington
Reach G
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as
part of park management, while recognizing that this portion of the park
is oriented primarily to opportunities to provide public visual and
physical access to the shoreline including over-water structures,
supporting concessions, boat launch and public beach facilities.
Lake Washington
Reach H
Buffers for vegetation management are not required in this reach. This
site has an approved Master Site Plan that includes significant public
access. Opportunities for public access along the waterfront and the
development of water-oriented uses are the designated priorities for
this reach.
Lake Washington
Reach I
The area of vegetation on public aquatic lands should be enhanced in
the short term. Upon redevelopment, vegetation buffers shall be
extended into the site adjacent to vegetated areas along the shoreline.
Vegetation restoration shall be balanced with public access and water-
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 121
Table 4-3-090F1l – Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives
oriented use on the balance of the site. Public access shall not impact
any restored lands on this site.
Lake Washington
Reach J
Enhanced riparian vegetation shall be provided in a manner consistent
with maintaining aviation safety as part of airport management.
Lake Washington
Reach K
Redevelopment of multi-family sites shall provide vegetation buffers at
the full standard, with possible employment of provisions for averaging
or reduction. Single family development in this reach provides primarily
lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit
ongoing adverse impacts shall be implemented through providing for
native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the
standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
May Creek
May Creek A This developed as a residential area and opportunities to limit impacts
shall be implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers
adjacent to the water based on the standards related to lot depth
together shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
May Creek A and B Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with
development of this property.
May Creek C and D Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach
with existing private lots, subject to buffer standards related to lot
depth, together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft
shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as
part of park management, balanced with needs of flood control levees
and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the
shoreline.
Cedar River B Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as
part of flood control management programs that may be integrated with
opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the
shoreline. Vegetation management and public access should be
addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to issuance of
shoreline permits for additional flood management activities. This
developed single family area shall implement vegetation management
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement
of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating
vegetation as provided for alteration of nonconforming uses, structures,
and sites.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 122
Table 4-3-090F1l – Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives
Cedar River C Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as
part of management of public parks. Full standard native vegetation
buffers should be maintained on the public open space on the south
side of the river, subject to existing trail corridors and other provisions
for public access. Enhancement of native riparian vegetation within the
standard or modified buffers shall be provided upon redevelopment of
the north shore, except in areas where public/community access is
provided. The vegetation conservation buffer may be designed to
incorporate floodplain management features including floodplain
compensatory storage.
Cedar River D Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach
with existing private lots subject to buffer standards related to lot depth
together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation.
Green River
Green River Reach
A
Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with
redevelopment of this property in this reach, balanced with provisions
for public access. Vegetation conservation within railroad rights-of-way
shall not be required within areas necessary for railway operation.
Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged in
areas of railroad right-of-way not devoted to transportation uses.
Expansion of railroad facilities may require specific vegetation
preservation and enhancement programs, consistent with the
standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Black River/Springbrook Creek
Black
River/Springbrook A
Public open space that exceeds buffer standards should be maintained
and native vegetation enhanced. Full standard buffers should be
provided upon redevelopment of adjacent land, recognizing the
constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Springbrook B Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land, recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and
public facilities.
Springbrook C and
D
Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage
district channels in conjunction with management plans including
adjustments to channel dimensions to assure continued flood capacity
with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by vegetation. Full
standard vegetated buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land presuming revegetation of the stream channel.
Vegetation management should retain a continuous trail system that
may be relocated further from the stream edge.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 123
Table 4-3-090F1l – Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives
Lake Desire
Lake Desire This developed primarily single family area provides primarily lawn and
ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing
adverse impacts should be implemented through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring
with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Shoreline
vegetation enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat
launching site balancing values of riparian vegetation with public
access. Existing shoreline vegetation in the publicly owned natural
areas should be preserved with some accommodation for interpretive
access to the water as a part of park management plans, subject to the
primary objective of protecting ecological functions.
2. Landfill and Excavation:
a. General Provisions: Landfill and excavation shall only be permitted in conjunction with an
approved use or development and allowed with assurance of no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Excavation below the OHWM is considered “dredging” and is addressed in a separate
section.
b. Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations Below Ordinary High Water Mark: Landfills
and excavations shall generally be prohibited below the OHWM, except for the following activities,
and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of ecological functions as documented in
appropriate technical studies:
i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an approved ecological
restoration activity;
ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation facilities and utilities currently
located within shoreline jurisdiction, when alternatives or less impacting approaches are not
feasible;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 124
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or public access; when alternatives
or less impacting approaches are not feasible; and provided, that filling and/or excavation are
limited to the minimum needed to accommodate the facility;
v. Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved shoreline protection facilities, or
the repair of existing shoreline protection facilities;
vi. Approved flood control projects;
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including vegetation restoration; and
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or otherwise authorized by the Department of
Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the
proposed fill for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. Review Standards: All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in terms of all of the following
standards:
i. The overall value to the public of the results of the fill or excavation site as opposed to the
value of the shoreline in its existing state as well as evaluation of alternatives to fill that would
achieve some or all of the objectives of the proposal.
ii. Effects on ecological functions including, but not limited to, functions of the substrate of
streams and lakes and effects on aquatic organisms, including the food chain, effects on
vegetation functions, effects on local currents and erosion and deposition patterns, effects on
surface and subsurface drainage, and effects on flood waters.
iii. Whether shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect materials placed or removed and
whether such stabilization meets the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Whether the landfill or excavation will adversely alter the normal flow of flood water, including
obstructions of flood overflow channels or swales, after taking into account any compensating
flood storage provided by the proposal.
v. Whether public or tribal rights to the use and enjoyment of the shoreline and its resources and
amenities are impaired.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 125
d. Performance Standards: Performance standards for fill and excavation include:
i. Disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized and revegetated to avoid or minimize erosion
and sedimentation impacts, both during initial work and over time. Natural and self-sustaining
control methods are preferred over structures.
ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with existing
topography.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: All fill and excavation waterward of the OHWM not
associated with ecological restoration, flood control or approved shoreline stabilization shall require
a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
3. Dredging:
a. General: Dredging and dredge material disposal, when permitted, shall be done in a manner
which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. Impacts which cannot be avoided should
be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
b. Dredging Limited: Dredging is permitted only in cases where the proposal, including any
necessary mitigation, will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and is limited to the
following:
i. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins where
necessary to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses.
Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be restricted to
maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width.
ii. For flood control purposes, when part of a publicly adopted flood control plan.
iii. For restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions benefiting water quality
and/or fish and wildlife habitat and approved by applicable local, State and Federal agencies.
iv. For development of approved water-dependent uses provided there are no feasible
alternatives.
v. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public
shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access. Dredging may
be permitted where additional public access is provided.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 126
vi. Maintenance dredging for access to existing legally established boat moorage slips including
public and commercial moorage and moorage accessory to single family residences; provided,
that dredging shall be limited to maintaining the previously dredged and/or existing authorized
location, depth, and width. Dredging shall be disallowed to maintain depths of existing private
moorage where it results in a net loss of ecological functions.
vii. Minor trenching to allow the installation of necessary underground pipes or cables if no
alternative, including boring, is feasible, and:
(a) Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are avoided to the maximum extent possible.
(b) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate, extent, or
opportunity of channel migration.
(c) Appropriate best management practices are employed to prevent water quality impacts
or other environmental degradation.
viii. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan approved under authority of the
Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of Ecology, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the proposed
materials for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality, when
such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas.
c. Dredging Prohibited: Dredging shall be prohibited in the following cases:
i. Dredging shall not be performed within the deltas of the Cedar River and May Creek except
for purposes of ecological restoration, for public flood control projects, for water-dependent
public facilities, or for limited maintenance dredging in conformance with this Section.
ii. Dredging is prohibited solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material. Dredging
which is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection F3b of this Section is
prohibited.
iii. Dredging for new moorage is prohibited.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 127
iv. Dredging may not be performed to maintain facilities established for water-dependent uses in
cases where the primary use is discontinued unless the facility meets all standards for a new
water-dependent use.
v. Dredging of public aquatic lands is prohibited unless approval is granted from the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources.
d. Review Criteria:
i. New development, including the development of associate piers and docks, should be sited
and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance
dredging. Where alternatives such as the utilization of shallow access to mooring buoys is
feasible, such measures shall be used.
ii. All proposed dredging operations shall be designed by an appropriate State-licensed
professional engineer. A stamped engineering report and an assessment of potential impacts on
ecological functions shall be prepared by qualified consultants and shall be submitted to the
Renton Planning Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit.
iii. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the
proposed dredging operation.
iv. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate that:
(a) There will be no net loss of ecological functions including but not limited to adverse effect
on aquatic species including fish migration.
(b) There will be no adverse impact on recreational areas or public recreation enjoyment of
the water.
v. Adjacent Bank Protection:
(a) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed
unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry
out practices to protect the banks.
(b) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area,
the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of restoration of
the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 128
vi. Avoidance of Adverse Effects: The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate the
proposed dredging will avoid conditions that may adversely affect adjacent properties including:
(a) Creating a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
(b) Damaging property in or near the area.
(c) Causing substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the
area.
(d) Endangering public safety in or near the area.
vii. The applicant shall demonstrate control of contamination and pollution to water, air, and
ground through specific operation and mitigation plans.
viii. Disposal of Dredge Material: The applicant shall demonstrate that the disposal of dredged
material will not result in net loss of ecological functions or adverse impacts to properties
adjacent to the disposal site.
(a) The applicant shall provide plans for the location and method of disposing of all dredged
material.
(b) Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake, stream, or marine water except if
approved as habitat enhancement or other beneficial environmental mitigation as part of
ecological restoration, a contamination remediation project approved by appropriate State
and/or Federal agencies, or is approved in accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis evaluation procedures for managing in-water-disposal of dredged material
by applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits, and
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval.
(c) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area that would result
in the clearing of native vegetation. Temporary stockpiling of dredged material is limited to
one hundred eighty (180) days.
(d) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall propose
and carry out a method of disposal that complies with all regulatory requirements.
(e) Permanent land disposal shall demonstrate that:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 129
(1) Shoreline ecological functions will be preserved, including protection of surface water
and groundwater.
(2) Erosion, sedimentation, flood waters or runoff will not increase adverse impacts to
shoreline ecological functions or property.
(3) Sites will be adequately screened from view of local residents or passersby on public
rights-of-way.
(4) The site is not located within a channel migration zone.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: Dredging shall require a shoreline conditional use unless
associated with existing water-dependent uses, habitat enhancement, a remedial action plan
approved under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Model Toxics Control Act, or public recreation facilities or uses.
4. Shoreline Stabilization:
a. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures:
i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization should be
avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New development on steep slopes or bluffs
shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary
during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.
ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline stabilization shall be
considered in the determination of whether to approve new water-dependent uses.
Development of new water-dependent uses that would require shoreline stabilization which
causes significant impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should
not be allowed.
iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization measures
should be used only when more natural, flexible, nonstructural methods such as vegetative
stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering have been determined infeasible.
Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of preference:
(a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and
relocate structures.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 130
(b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures such as soft
shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or
vegetative stabilization.
(c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described below,
constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line.
(d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexible defense works, as
described above.
(e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete.
iv. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization measures shall not
be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of the following situations:
(a) To protect existing primary structures:
(1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary
structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive
evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from
shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves within three (3) years, or where waiting
until the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid
impacts on ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline
erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need.
The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address
drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline
stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause of shoreline instability at the site in question.
(2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this
Section.
(3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone (CMZ) require a
geomorphic assessment by a Washington-licensed geologist with engineering geology
or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic
assessments. Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 131
erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the
measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes
normally acting in natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of
impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream.
(b) New Development: In support of new development when all six (6) of the conditions
listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis:
(1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation
and drainage.
(2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline,
planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not
sufficient.
(3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated
through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such
as currents and waves.
(4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii
of this Section.
(5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation
proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(6) The proposed new development is not located in a channel migration zone (CMZ).
(c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the restoration of
ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to
chapter 70.105D RCW when both of the conditions below apply and are documented by a
geotechnical analysis:
(1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation
proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 132
(2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii
of this Section.
(d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor area when
necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a geotechnical report:
(1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage
improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
(2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation
proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii
of this Section.
v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this Section that
addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the
necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on
the urgency associated with the specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the
need and effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential damage
to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of other agencies
with jurisdiction.
vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on streams
should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural stream processes. The
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall
review the proposed design for consistency with State guidelines for stream bank protection as
it relates to local physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master
Program, subject to the following:
(a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall
be performed to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential of the specific
stream reach and adjacent reaches upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity
of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and
that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or valuable shoreline
resources.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 133
(b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel bars, and in
salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish or wildlife habitat
enhancement or restoration.
(c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands
unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such features would not
adversely affect ecological functions.
(d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend of channel
banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and existing structures.
(e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank protection
guidelines.
(f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological
functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream
geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-water
structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological functions
that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss.
b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any
structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the following design
criteria shall apply:
i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed by a
qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to ensure that
installation meets all design parameters.
ii. General Requirements: The size of stabilization measures shall be limited to the minimum
necessary. Use measures shall be designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect
primary structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions.
iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion
control measures shall be ensured to not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline
except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety,
security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4).
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 134
Where feasible, ecological restoration and public access improvements shall be incorporated
into the project.
iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be permitted to
unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with other appropriate
shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or private recreation and Indian
treaty rights.
v. Aesthetic Qualities to Be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline stabilization measures shall
be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
vi. Public Access to Be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access should be
incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization structures for
public or quasi-public developments whenever safely compatible with the primary purpose.
Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to decrease long-term
public use of the shoreline.
c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline stabilization structures not in
compliance with this Code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the applicable criteria
below:
i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be repaired as
long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization function for a legally established land use,
but shall be subject to the provisions below if the land use for which the shoreline stabilization
structure was constructed is abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, or changed
to a new use.
ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline
stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to serve a use
that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, discontinued, or changed
to a new use may be retained or replaced with a similar structure if:
(a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis to protect
principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 135
(b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation to the hierarchy
of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in subsection F4aiii of this Section shows
that a more preferred level of shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing
shoreline stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives (a) through (c) of
the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section would be infeasible then the existing
shoreline stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a similar structure.
iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting Residences: Replacement
walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or
existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are
overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut
the existing shoreline stabilization structure.
v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft shoreline stabilization
measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward
of the ordinary high-water mark. Replenishment of substrate materials to maintain the
specifications of the permitted design may be allowed as maintenance.
vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical habitats would
occur by leaving an existing structure that is being replaced, the structure shall be removed as
part of the replacement measure.
5. Flood Control:
a. Permitted Flood Control Projects: Flood control works shall be permitted when it is
demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluations that:
i. They are necessary to protect health, safety and/or existing development;
ii. Nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and
iii. Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan that
evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.
b. Prohibited Flood Control Projects: New or expanding development or uses in the shoreline,
including subdivision of land, that would likely require new structural flood control works within a
stream, channel migration zone, or floodway shall not be allowed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 136
c. Long-Term Compatibility: New or expanded flood control works and in-stream structures
should be planned and designed to be compatible with appropriate multiple uses of stream
resources over the long term, especially in shorelines of Statewide significance.
d. Criteria for Allowing Flood Control Projects: New flood control works should only be allowed
in the shoreline if they are necessary to protect existing development and where nonstructural flood
hazard reduction measures are infeasible.
e. Native Vegetation: Flood control works should incorporate native vegetation to the extent
feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance, improve ecological
functions, and provide more flexibility for long-term shoreline management.
f. Consideration of Alternatives: To minimize flood damages and to maintain natural resources
associated with streams, overflow corridors and other alternatives to traditional bank levees,
revetments and/or dams shall be considered. Setback levees and similar measures should be
employed where they will result in lower flood peaks and velocities, and more effective conservation
of resources than with high bank levees. On Cedar River Reach D, setting back existing levees to
provide for enhanced natural stream processes may be pursued when adequate provisions are
made for protecting existing public and private uses.
g. Public Access Required: Flood control works shall provide access to public shorelines
whenever possible, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable public
health and safety hazards, security problems, unmitigatable ecological impacts, unavoidable
conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. At a minimum, flood control works should not
decrease public access or use potential of shorelines.
6. Stream Alteration:
a. Definition of Stream Alteration: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a
river, stream or creek.
b. Alterations to Be Minimized: Stream alteration shall be minimized, and when allowed should
change natural stream processes as little as possible.
c. Allowed if No Feasible Alternative: Unless otherwise prohibited by subsection E10 of this
Section, Transportation, and subsection E11 of this Section, Utilities, stream alteration may be
allowed for transportation and utility crossings and in-stream structures only where there is no
feasible alternative.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 137
d. Allowed for Flood Hazard Reduction: Stream alteration may be permitted if it is part of a public
flood hazard reduction program or a habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State
and/or Federal agencies.
e. Prohibited Alterations: Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable
portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land is prohibited.
f. Detriment to Adjacent Parcels Prohibited: Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be
significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels.
g. Applicant’s Responsibility: The applicant has the sole responsibility to demonstrate the
necessity of the proposal and compliance with the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program.
h. Professional Design Required: All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an
appropriately State-licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted with a
supplemental lake/stream study to the Planning Division as part of the application.
i. Impacts to Aquatic Life to Be Minimized: The design, timing and the methods employed will
have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life, including minimizing erosion, sedimentation and other
pollution during and after construction.
j. Flow Levels to Be Maintained: The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained
and fish escapement is provided for.
k. Conditional Use Permit Required in a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ): Stream alterations
within a channel migration zone require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 138
4-4-130 TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS:
C. ALLOWED TREE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES:
Tree removal and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided
in subsection D3 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas – General, and in RMC 4-3-110E5b,
Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. Except as stated in subsection C9 of this Section, no Routine
Vegetation Management Permit is required for the following activities/work:
1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private
utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
2. Dangerous Trees: Removal of a dangerous tree, as defined in RMC 4-11-200, Definitions T, that has
been certified as such by a City approved, licensed landscape architect or certified arborist.
3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal – Public or Private Utilities, Roads and Public
Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal for
public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements, and public parks.
4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public and
private utilities; provided, that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures.
5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing and ongoing
agricultural activities as defined in RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A.
6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: Removal of only those trees which are planted and growing on
the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler.
7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads, unless critical areas would be affected (refer to
subsection C12 of this Section, Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved
Right-of-Way or Easements).
8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as
surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of mechanical
equipment to perform site investigative work, provided the work is conducted in accordance with the
following requirements:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 139
a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent (5%) of any protected sensitive
area described in subsection D3 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas – General, on the
subject property. In every case, impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas restored.
b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted, disturbed areas shall be minimized,
and immediately restored.
c. A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner’s agent indicating that site
investigative work is being conducted, and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical
areas identified in subsection D3 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas – General.
d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Community and Economic
Development Administrator.
9. Minor Tree Removal Activities: Except as provided in subsection D3 of this Section, Restrictions for
Critical Areas – General, removal of trees and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted at
the rates specified within the table below, provided subsections C9a through e of this Section are
satisfied. A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is required for removal of trees in excess of the
rates listed below for all properties. A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is required for the
removal of any trees within shoreline jurisdiction if the removal is not included in another land use
permitting process.
Lot Size
Maximum number of
significant trees* allowed to
be removed in any twelve (12)
month period
Maximum number of
significant trees* allowed to
be removed in five (5) years
Lots up to 10,000 sq. ft. 2 4
Lots 10,001 to 20,000 sq.
ft.
3 6
Lots 20,001 sq. ft. or
greater
6 12
*Except landmark trees (greater than a thirty inch (30") caliper) shall not be removed
without a Routine Vegetation Management Permit. Within shoreline jurisdiction, tree
removal shall occur outside of the buffer, except when necessary to remove dangerous
trees or if part of an approved shoreline vegetation conservation buffer enhancement plan.
a. There is not an active land development application for the site;
b. The trees proposed for removal are not protected trees;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 140
c. The tree is not a landmark tree; and
d. Minimum Tree Density:
i. A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot, as specified in the
table below. The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, trees required
pursuant to RMC 4-4-070F1, Street Frontage Landscaping Required, or a combination. If the
number of trees required includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-
half (1/2) shall be rounded up; and
Type of Residential
Development
Minimum Tree
Density
Multi-family
development
(attached dwellings)3
Four (4) significant
trees1 for every five
thousand (5,000) sq.
ft.
Single family
development
(detached
dwellings)2
Two (2) significant
trees1 for every five
thousand (5,000) sq.
ft.
1Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches
provided by one or more trees.
2Lots developed with detached dwellings in
the R-10 and R-14 zones are exempt.
3Development in the RMF zone is exempt.
ii. Property owners are responsible for maintaining these trees in a healthy condition.
e. Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree removal activities, rights-of-way shall
not be obstructed unless a right-of-way use permit is obtained.
10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of
subsection C9 of this Section, Minor Tree Removal Activities, and subsection D3 of this Section,
Restrictions for Critical Areas – General, is permitted for purposes of landscaping or gardening;
provided, that no mechanical equipment is used.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 141
11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: Land clearing and tree removal associated with previously approved
operational mining and quarrying activities.
12. Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways within Existing, Improved Rights-of-Way or
Easements: Within existing improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation, construction,
replacement, operation, overbuilding, or alteration of all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone
and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, traffic control devices,
illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improved area or the public right-
of-way, this exemption does not apply. Restoration of disturbed areas shall be completed.
13. Land Development Permit Required: Tree removal authorized by a Land Development Permit.
D. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES:
1. Tree Cutting in Advance of Issuance of Land Development Permit: There shall be no tree
removal or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development unless a
Land Development Permit, as defined in RMC 4-11-120, Definitions L, for the City approved site.
2. Tree Cutting or Vegetation Management without Required Routine Vegetation Management
Permit:
a. Tree cutting in excess of the limits established in subsection C9 of this Section, Minor Tree
Removal Activities, is prohibited unless a Routine Vegetation Management Permit has been
granted.
b. Routine vegetation management on an undeveloped property without a Routine Vegetation
Management Permit is prohibited.
c. Use of non-exempt mechanical equipment (mechanical equipment with more than twenty-seven
(27) horsepower) without a Routine Vegetation Management Permit is prohibited.
3. Restrictions for Critical Areas – General: Unless exempted by critical areas, RMC 4-3-050C5 or
Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree removal, or land clearing, or ground
cover management is permitted:
a. On portions of property with:
i. Critical areas, habitats, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050BK, Applicability Habitat Conservation; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 142
ii. Streams and lakes, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050L, Streams and Lakes;
iii. Buffers associated with Shorelines shorelines of the State, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090,
Shoreline Master Program Regulations; and. Allowed tree removal and vegetation management
activities within the Shoreline buffer can be found in subsection 4-3-090F.1.i, Vegetation
Management.; and
iv. Wetlands and wetland buffers, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M, Wetlands;
b. On protected slopes except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical Areas Regulations,
RMC 4-3-050; or
c. Areas classified as very high landslide hazards, except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical
Areas Regulations, RMC 4-3-050.
4. Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas: Tree removal or land clearing shall not be
permitted within a native growth protection area except as provided in RMC 4-3-050G.3E4, Native
Growth Protection Areas.
5. Tree Topping: Tree topping shall be prohibited unless the City has approved the tree for removal.
6. Removal of Landmark Tree: The removal of a landmark tree (a tree with a caliper of thirty inches
(30") or greater) is prohibited without an approved Routine Vegetation Management Permit or a Land
Development Permit.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 143
4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES:
H. CRITICAL AREAS/INAPPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS:
1. Critical Areas Maps: The map(s) in RMC 4-3-050E identify critical areas. The maps in RMC 4-3-
090 identify regulated Shorelines shorelines of the State. The specific environmentally critical areas
where SEPA exemptions are not applicable are identified in subsection H3 of this Section.
2. Critical Areas Designated: Wetlands, Protected Slopes, Very High Landslide Hazard Areas,
Streams and Lakes, Channel Migration Zones, Shorelines shorelines of the State designated as
Aquatic Shoreline, Natural Environment or Urban Conservancy, and the one hundred (100) year
floodway, as mapped and identified pursuant to subsection H1 of this Section, or when present
according to the critical area classification criteria of RMC 4-3-050, are designated as environmentally
critical areas pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, WAC 197-11-908.
3. Inapplicable Exemptions:
a. Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of
whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply
within environmentally critical areas of the City.
b. For each critical area, the exemptions within WAC 197-11-800 that are inapplicable for that area
are:
WAC 197-11-800(1), except for the construction of one new single -family residence on an
existing legal lot, provided the proposed development complies with RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-
090; however, this exception does not apply to projects within a channel migration zone or
those projects requiring a variance or reasonable use exception from RMC 4-3-050 or 4-3-
090.
WAC 197-11-800(2)(e), (f), (g), (h)
WAC 197-11-800(6)(d)
WAC 197-11-800(13)(c)
WAC 197-11-800(23)(c), (e)
WAC 197-11-800(24)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g)
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 144
WAC 197-11-800(25)
c. Additionally, the exemptions within WAC 197-11-800 are inapplicable to wetlands:
WAC 197-11-800(3), except for the repair, remodeling, or maintenance of an existing single -
family residence, provided the proposed development complies with RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-
090. This exception would not apply to projects within a channel migration zone or those
projects requiring a variance or reasonable use exception from RMC 4-3-050 or 4-3-090.
WAC 197-11-800(4)
WAC 197-11-800(6)
WAC 197-11-800(8)
4. Proposals Located within Critical Areas: The City shall treat proposals located wholly or partially
within a critical area no differently than other proposals under this Section, making a threshold
determination for all such proposals. The City shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal
merely because it is proposed for location in a critical area.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 145
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS:
A. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Section is to ensure consistency with the State Shoreline Management Act and with
the City’s Shoreline Master Program.
B. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL:
1. Development Compliance: All uses and developments within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act (hereinafter the “Act”) shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent
with the Shoreline Master Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1),
regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline
conditional use permit is required. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee shall assure compliance with the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program
for all permits and approvals processed by the City, and may add conditions of approval in order to
ensure compliance.
2. Shoreline Overlay: Shoreline regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to development
regulations, including but not limited to zoning, environmental regulations, development standards,
subdivision regulations, and other regulations established by the City.
a. Allowed uses shall be limited by the general polices and specific regulations regarding use
preferences for water-dependent and water-oriented uses. Allowed uses may be specified and
limited in specific shoreline permits. In the case of nonconforming development, the use provisions
of this code shall be applied to any change of use, including occupancy permits.
b. In the event of any conflict between shoreline policies and regulations and any other regulations
of the City, shoreline policies and regulations shall prevail unless other regulations provide greater
protection of the shoreline natural environment and aquatic habitat.
c. All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the
objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies,
found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to
chapter 90.58 RCW and chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC.
3. Substantial Development Permit: A substantial development permit shall be required for all
proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 146
RCW 90.58.140(1) or WAC 173.27. An exemption from obtaining a shoreline substantial development
permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act, the Shoreline Master Program, or from any
other regulatory requirements.
a. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of
one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the substantial development
permit process.
b. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt is on the applicant/proponent of the
exempt development action.
c. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial
development permit is required for the entire project.
4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: A development or use that is listed as a shoreline conditional
use pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program or is an unlisted use must obtain a conditional use
permit even if the development or use does not require a substantial development permit.
5. Shoreline Variance: When an activity or development is proposed that does not comply with the
bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the program, such development or use shall only
be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance even if the development or use does not require a
substantial development permit.
6. Land Division: In the case of land divisions, such as short subdivisions, long plats and planned unit
developments, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee shall document compliance with bulk and dimensional standards as well as policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program and attach appropriate conditions and/or mitigating
measures to such approvals to ensure the design, development activities and future use associated
with such land division(s) are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
7. Approval Criteria: In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the
type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 147
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and
the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives
and intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of
sStatewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
8. Written Findings Required: All permits or statements of exemption issued for development or use
within shoreline jurisdiction shall include written findings prepared by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee, including compliance with bulk
and dimensional standards and policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. The
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may attach
conditions to the approval of exempt developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of
the project with the Act and the program.
9. Building Permit Compliance: For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall not issue a building
permit for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been
documented. If a shoreline substantial development permit is required, no permit shall be issued until
all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any permit issued by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee for such development shall be
subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit.
10. Restoration Project Relief: The City may grant relief from Shoreline Master Program development
standards and use regulations when the following apply:
a. A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward shift in the OHWM, resulting in
the following:
i. Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the restoration
project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 148
ii. Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required shoreline buffers
or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline Master Program; and
iii. Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would preclude or interfere with use of
the property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the
project proponent.
b. The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria:
i. The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
ii. After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration
project;
iii. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration
project and consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; and
iv. Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit,
the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under this
Section.
c. The application for relief must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for written approval or
disapproval. This review must occur during the department’s normal review of a shoreline
substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no such permit is required,
then the department shall conduct its review when the local government provides a copy of a
complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct the review.
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B10d of this Section, the Department of
Ecology shall provide at least twenty (20) days’ notice to parties that have indicated interest
to the department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the notice
on to their website.
ii. The department shall act within thirty (30) calendar days of close of the public notice
period, or within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if
additional public notice is not required.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 149
d. The public notice requirements of subsection B10c of this Section do not apply if the relevant
shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline Master Program or shoreline restoration
plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as follows:
i. The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable Shoreline Master
Program guidelines; and
ii. The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the Shoreline Master Program or
restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the Shoreline Master Program
or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from shoreline regulations; and
iii. The Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the nature of
the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied.
C. EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM:
1. The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master
Program and are exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). An
exemption from an SSDP is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master
Program, or from any other regulatory requirements.
1a. Governor’s Certification: Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to
chapter 80.50 RCW.
2b. Projects Valued at $5,000 7,047.00 or Less: Any development of which the total cost or fair
market value does not exceed five seven thousand forty-seven dollars ($5,000.00),7,047.00), or as
adjusted per RCW 90.58.030(3), if such development does not materially interfere with the normal
public use of the water or shorelines of the State.
3c. Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or
developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements.
ai. “Normal maintenance” includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation
from a lawfully established condition.
bii. “Normal repair” means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original
condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 150
appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair
causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment.
ciii. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such
replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the
replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development
including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and
the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or
environment.
4d. Emergency Construction: Emergency construction necessary to protect property from
damage by the elements.
ai. An “emergency” is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full compliance
with the Shoreline Master Program.
bii. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective
structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed to be
the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency
situation, the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required,
absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 173-27 WAC or the Shoreline
Master Program shall be obtained.
ciii. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and
the Shoreline Master Program.
div. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that
are not imminent are not an emergency.
5e. Agricultural Construction or Practices: Construction and practices normal or necessary for
farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on
shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures, including, but not limited
to, head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing
plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling
or filling, other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or
necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 151
of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include
land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal
livestock wintering operations.
6f. Construction of Single Family Residence and Accessory Buildings: Construction on
shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use
or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet (35') above
average grade level as defined in WAC 173-27-030 and which meets all requirements of the State
agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant
to this Section.
ai. “Single family” residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one
family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a
normal appurtenance. An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of
a single family residence and is located landward of the OHWM and/or the perimeter of a
wetland.
bii. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the OHWM.
7g. Construction of Noncommercial Docks: Construction of a dock including a community dock
designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract
purchaser of single and multi-family residences.
ai. This exception applies if the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks and are
of equal or lesser square footage than the dock being replaces; or (B) ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00); however) for all other docks constructed in fresh waters. However, if subsequent
construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500.00) occurs within five (5) years of completion of the prior construction, and the
combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount
specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development
permit; and
bii. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational
decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 152
8h. Construction Authorized by the Coast Guard: Construction or modification, by or under the
authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such
as channel markers and anchor buoys.
9i. Operation, Maintenance, or Construction Related to Irrigation: Operation, maintenance, or
construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are
hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making
use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for the irrigation of
lands.
10j. Marking of Property Lines on State-Owned Lands: The marking of property lines or corners
on State-owned lands when such marking does not interfere with the normal public use of the
surface of the water.
11k. Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Drainage or Dikes: Operation and
maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8,
1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or
diking system.
12l. Activities Necessary for Permit Application: Site exploration and investigation activities that
are prerequisites to preparation of an application for development authorization under the Shoreline
Master Program, if:
ai. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters.
bii. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not
limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values.
ciii. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the
activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing
before the activity.
div. A private entity seeking development authorization under the Shoreline Master Program first
posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the Planning
Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
ev. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 153
13m. Removal or Control of Aquatic Noxious Weeds: The process of removing or controlling an
aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of a herbicide or other
treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental
impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly
with other State agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
14n. Watershed Restoration Projects: Watershed restoration projects as defined below:
ai. “Watershed restoration project” means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor
of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of
one or more of the following activities:
i.(a) A project that involves less than ten (10) miles of streamreach, in which less than
twenty-five (25) cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or
discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary
to facilitate additional plantings.
ii.(b) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the
principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of
the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces
of flowing water.
iii.(c) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce
impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of
the citizens of the State, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in
stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred
(200) square feet in floor area and is located above the OHWM of the stream.
bii. “Watershed restoration plan” means a plan, developed or sponsored by a State department,
a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a conservation district, for which agency
and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan generally contains a general program
and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or
enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment,
drainage area, or watershed.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 154
15o. Projects to Improve Fish and Wildlife Passage or Habitat: A public or private project, the
primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the
following apply:
ai. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as
necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited
to accomplish the intended purpose.
bii. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
pursuant to chapter 75.20 77.04 RCW.
ciii. The Planning Division has determined that the project is consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program.
16p. Hazardous Substance Remediation: Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to
WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(B)(V)7-040(3).
17q. Projects on Lands Not Subject to Shoreline Jurisdiction Prior to Restoration: Actions on
land that otherwise would not be under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act except for
a change in the location of OHWM or other criteria due to a shoreline restoration project creating a
landward shift in the OHWM that brings the land under the jurisdiction of the Act.
r. Americans with Disabilities Act: The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with
the exclusive purpose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
Sec 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with
disabilities.
2. Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews: Requirements to
obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other
review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following:
a. Remedial Actions: Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a
facility pursuant to a consent decrees, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D
RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D
RCW.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 155
b. Boatyard Improvement to Meet NPDES Permit Requirements: Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355,
any person installing site improvements for stormwater treatment in an existing boatyard facility to
meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system stormwater general permit.
c. WSDOT Facility Maintenance and Safety Improvements: Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356,
Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of
RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews.
d. Environmental Excellence Program: Projects consistent with an environmental excellence
program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
e. Energy Facility Site Evaluation: Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
D. EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PROCEDURES:
1. Application Required: Any person claiming exemption from the shoreline substantial development
permit requirements of the Shoreline Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this
Section shall make application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Planning Division in the manner
prescribed by that division.
2. Consistency Required: Any development which occurs within the regulated shorelines of the State
under Renton’s jurisdiction, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the
State law.
3. Conditions Authorized: The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments
and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and
the Shoreline Master Program.
4. Permit Required if Project Not Exempt in Part: If any part of a proposed development is not
eligible for exemption, then a shoreline substantial development permit is required for the entire
proposed development project.
E. SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application: Prior
to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from a shoreline permit, the
applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with the Planning Division. This will enable
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 156
the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, building and
zoning procedures, and enforcement procedures.
2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: No shoreline development shall be
undertaken on shorelines of the State City without first obtaining a “substantial development permit”
from the Planning Division.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees: Fees shall be as listed
in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees the City of Renton Fee Schedule. Applications for such
permits shall be made on forms and reviewed according to procedures prescribed by the Planning
Division. Application forms may be revised from time to time by the Planning Division without prejudice
to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to provide such information as is
necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified.
4. Secondary Review by Independent Qualified Professionals: When appropriate due to the type of
critical areas, habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may require the applicant to
prepare or fund analyses or activities conducted by a third party or parties selected by the Administrator
of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee and paid for by the
applicant. Analyses and/or activities conducted under this subsection include, but are not limited to:
a. Evaluation by an independent qualified professional of the applicant’s analysis and the
effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations
as appropriate; and
b. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Indian Tribe or other appropriate
agency; and/or
c. Analysis of detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent or abutting
to the site.
5. Public Notice: Three (3) copies of a notice of development application shall be posted prominently
on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred feet (300') thereof.
The notice of development application shall also be mailed to property owners within three hundred feet
(300') of the boundaries of the subject property. The required contents of the notice of development
application are detailed in RMC 4-8-090B, Public Notice Requirements.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 157
6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each notice of development application shall include a statement
that persons desiring to present their views to the Planning Division with regard to said application may
do so in writing to that division and persons interested in the Planning Division’s action on an
application for a permit may submit their views in writing or notify the Planning Division in writing of their
interest within fourteen (14) thirty (30) days from the date of the notice of application.
7. Special Public Comment Time: Notice of development application for a substantial development
permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11)(b) or for the construction of
a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from
shoreline erosion shall include a fourteen (14) day comment period.
Such notification or submission of views to the Planning Division shall entitle those persons to a copy of
the action taken on the application.
8. Review Guidelines: Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional use permit
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, no substantial development permit and no other permit
shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the Shoreline
Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the
Department of Ecology thereunder.
9. Conditional Approval: Should the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed
by the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he/she may deny such
application or attach any terms or condition which he/she deems suitable and reasonable to effect the
purpose and objective of the Shoreline Master Program.
10. Notification: It shall be the duty of the Planning Division to timely furnish copies of all applications
and actions taken by said division unto such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may
extend to all or any part of the proposed development, including any State or Federal agencies and
Indian tribes.
F. REVIEW CRITERIA:
1. General: The Planning Division shall review an application for a permit based on the following:
a. The application.
b. The environmental checklist or environmental impact statement, if one is required.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 158
c. Written comments from interested persons.
d. Information and comments from all affected City departments.
e. Evidence presented at a public hearing.
f. No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the State shall be granted by
the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee unless
upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of
the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program.
2. Additional Information: The Planning Division may require an applicant to furnish information and
data in addition to that contained or required in the application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate
environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another
agency, the City’s Environmental Review Committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior
to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement.
3. Procedural Amendments: In addition to the criteria hereinabove set forth in this Section, the
Department of Community and Economic Development may from time to time promulgate additional
procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City
Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology.
4. Burden of Proof on Applicant: The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is
consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant.
G. SURETY DEVICES:
The Planning Division may require the applicant to post a surety device in favor of the City of Renton to
assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any shoreline
permit. Said surety device shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred
improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated and in accordance with RMC 4-1-230,
Suretiesy and Bonds.
H. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
The Department of Community and Economic Development shall have the final authority to interpret
the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Renton. Where an application is denied or changed, per
subsection E6 of this Section, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a “substantial
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 159
development permit” to the Shoreline Hearings Board for an open record appeal in accordance with
RMC 4-8-110. See RMC 4-8-110H for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Any person
aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the State pursuant to
RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a petition for review
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing of the decision as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).
I. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES:
1. Purpose: The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a manner
which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a
fair and equitable manner.
2. Authority:
a. Conditional Use Permits: Conditional use permits shall be processed either by the Hearing
Examiner or administratively in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-2-060, Zoning Use Table
– Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations; provided, that:
i. Additional requirements for conditional use permits may be provided within shoreline
jurisdiction in this Section and will prevail over the provisions of RMC 4-2-060.
ii. If an administrative process is not specified, a conditional use permit shall be processed by
the Hearing Examiner.
iii. Proposed uses not specified in this Section or in RMC 4-2-060 and not prohibited may be
allowed by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit.
b. Variances: The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and
variances in the administration of the Renton Shoreline Master Program.
c. State Department of Ecology Decision: Both variances and conditional use permits are
forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General’s office for approval or denial.
d. Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: Conditional permits and variances shall be deemed
to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt by the Department of
Ecology and the Attorney General’s office unless written communication is received by the applicant
and the City indicating otherwise. The Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the City
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 160
and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving conditional
use permits and variances within thirty (30) days of submittal per WAC 173-27-200.
i. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with submitted to the State in accordance
with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
ii. Permit validity requirements of subsection J of this Section shall apply to conditional use and
variance permits.
iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made by filing a petition for review
with the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 RMC 4-8-110H.
3. Maintenance of Permitted Uses Allowed: It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the
Shoreline Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance and
restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit.
4. Variances:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at
variance with the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program where, owing to special
conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application
of the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary
hardship or practical difficulties. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief
from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program
where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of
property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary
hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
b. Decision Criteria: Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the
permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the
applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest
shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit
by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Shoreline Master Program is not, by
itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Hearing Examiner must find each of the following:
i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or
to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the
same vicinity.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 161
ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same
vicinity.
iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline
Master Program.
v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by
granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance shall be
denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his
lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
vii. Proposals that vary the size of the vegetation conservation buffer must provide for off-site
mitigation in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F1k.
i. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland
as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate
all of the following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of
the property;
(b) That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the
master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
(c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area
and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master
program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 162
(d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area;
(e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
(f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
ii. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM,
as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h),
may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
(b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection I4b(i)(b)-(f)
of this Section; and
(c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected.
iii. Variances from the use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program are prohibited.
5. Conditional Use:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use permit
criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to
provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Shoreline Master
Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to
include many uses. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system which allows
flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit to
prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the
act and the Shoreline Master Program.
b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can may be permitted only after
consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other
permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit may be granted subject to the
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 163
Administrator of the Department of Economic Development or designee determines ing compliance
with each all of the following conditions:
i. The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the Shoreline Master
Program; The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
ii. The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;.
iii. The proposed use of the site and design Design of the project site will be compatible with
other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
Comprehensive Plan the surroundings and the Shoreline Master Program;.
iv. The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
which it is to be located; and The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Shoreline Master Program.
v. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The use meets the conditional
use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
J. TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE PERMITS:
1. Applicability: The time requirements of this Section shall apply to all substantial development
permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized
under the Shoreline Master Program.
2. Unspecified Time Limits: Where specific provisions are not included to establish time limits on a
permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology, the time limits in
subsections J6 and J8 of this Section apply.
3. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Substantial Developments: If it is determined that
standard time requirements of subsections J6 and J8 of this Section should not be applied, the
Planning Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a substantial development
permit upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the project
proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and
RCW 90.58.143.
4. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Conditional Uses or Shoreline Variances: If it is
determined that standard time requirements of subsections J6 and J8 of this Section should not be
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 164
applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department
of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a conditional use or variance
permit. “Good cause” means that the time limits established are reasonably related to the time actually
necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted.
5. Extension Requests: Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with subsections
J6 and J8 of this Section.
6. Standard Period of Validity: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as
authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J2 or J3 of this Section, construction activities, or a use
or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program must be
commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall
terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single
extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension
has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed
extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology.
7. Certification of Construction Commencement: Construction activities or commencement of
construction referenced in subsection J6 of this Section means that construction applications must be
submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of
the two (2)-year period.
8. Time Allowed for Construction Completion: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a
term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period
has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J2 or J3 of this Section. If an applicant
files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit the Planning Division shall
review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline
permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed
permit extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain the
validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in
accordance with adopted building codes.
9. Effective Date of Filing: For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date
of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall
be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections J6 and
J8 of this Section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to
the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions, or due to the need to obtain any other
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 165
government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed,
including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
10. Notification to City of Other Permits and Legal Actions: It is the responsibility of the applicant to
inform the Planning Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than
the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the
pendency of other permits or approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established
by the shoreline permit or the provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the
effective date of the shoreline permit.
11. Permit Processing Time: The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits specified by
State law. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as defined in
RCW 90.58.140(11)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family
residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty-one (21)
days of the last day of the comment periods specified in subsections E6 and E7 of this Section. Permit
review time for projects on a state highway is pursuant to RCW 47.01.485.
12. Construction Not Authorized Until Proceedings Completed: No construction pursuant to such
permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use
permits shall be issued by the City until twenty-one (21) days from the date the permit was filed with the
Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were
initiated within the twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with
RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
13. Special Allowance for Construction: If the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is appealed
to the Shoreline Hearings Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved the granting of the
permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shoreline Hearings Board decision is filed, construction
authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods, and other provisions of
RCW 90.58.140(5)(cb).
K. RULINGS TO STATE:
Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of the Shoreline
Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the
applicant, be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the
Planning Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 166
L. TRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT:
If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may be
transferred to the new owner.
M. ENFORCEMENT:
All provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall be enforced by the Planning Division. For such
purposes, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or his duly
authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer.
N. RESCISSION OF PERMITS:
1. Noncompliance with Permit: Any shoreline permit issued under the terms of the Shoreline Master
Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Planning Division of the City upon a finding that a
permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit.
2. Notice of Noncompliance: Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall be initiated
by serving written notice of noncompliance on the permittee, which notice shall be sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the application or to such other address
as the applicant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant
or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law.
3. Posting: In addition to such notice, the Planning Division shall cause to have notice posted in three
(3) public places of which one posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit.
4. Public Hearing: Before any such permit can be rescinded, a public hearing shall be held by the
Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance with RMC 4-8-090D,
Public Notice Requirements.
5. Final Decision: The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision of the City on all
rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology, the
Attorney General’s office, the applicant, and such other departments or boards of the City as are
affected thereby and the legislative body of the City.
O. APPEALS:
See RMC 4-8-110H. Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on
shorelines of the State pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the Shorelines Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 167
Board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing of the decision as
defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).
P. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
1. Prosecution: Every person violating any of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program or the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable under conviction by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, and each day’s violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
2. Injunction: The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as are
necessary to ensure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State within the City’s jurisdiction
which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of the Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Section and the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971.
3. Violators Liable for Damages: Any person subject to the regulatory program of the Shoreline
Master Program who violates any provision of the Shoreline Master Program or the provisions of a
permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from
such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation.
The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private
persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area
affected by violation, the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished
within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary
damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney’s fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing
party.
Q. SHORELINE MORATORIUM:
1. The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate
to implement the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act.
2. Prior to adopting such moratorium or other interim official controls, the City Council shall:
a. Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control within sixty (60) days of adoption;
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 168
b. Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to, justifications for the proposed or
adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes; and
c. Notify the Department of Ecology of the moratorium or control immediately after its adoption. The
notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing held.
3. Said moratorium or other official control shall provide that all lawfully existing uses, structures, or
other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be
maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land
use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
4. Said moratorium or control adopted under this Section may be effective for up to six (6) months if a
detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control
is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two (2)
six (6) month periods if the City Council complies with subsection Q2a of this Section before each
renewal.
5. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed Master Program or amendment is
submitted to the Department of Ecology, the moratorium or control must remain in effect until the
department's final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six (6) months after
the date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 169
4-9-195 ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMITS
A. PURPOSE:
This Section provides a permit process for routine vegetation management implementing the tree
retention and land clearing regulations in RMC 4-4-130.
B. AUTHORITY:
The Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this
Section.
C. APPLICABILITY:
Unless exempted by RMC 4-4-130C, Allowed Tree Removal Activities, a Routine Vegetation
Management Permit is required for any property where routine vegetation management activities are
undertaken.
D. PROCEDURES AND REVIEW CRITERIA:
Permits for routine vegetation management shall be processed as follows:
1. Submittal: An application for a routine vegetation management permit shall be submitted to the
Development Services Division together with any necessary fees as specified in the City of Renton Fee
Schedule.
2. Information Required: A routine vegetation management permit application shall contain the
information requested in RMC 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements – Specific to Application Type.
3. Time: The permit shall be reviewed administratively within a reasonable period of time.
4. Review Criteria: All land clearing and tree removal activities shall comply with RMC 4-4-060,
Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations, and shall meet the following criteria:
a. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree
Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
b. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with restrictions for critical areas, pursuant
to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas
Regulations.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 170
c. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal of a landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
d. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
e. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees required
as part of a land development permit.
f. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between land
uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions.
g. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition, such
as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may result
from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot.
h. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline
Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation and RMC 4-4-130, Tree
Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
5. Routine Vegetation Management Permit Conditions: The routine vegetation management permit
may be denied or conditioned by the City to restrict the timing and extent of activities or to require tree
replacement in order to further the intent of this Section including:
a. Preserve and enhance the City’s aesthetic character and maintain visual screening and buffering.
b. Preserve habitat to the greatest extent feasible.
c. Prevent landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence hazards.
d. Minimize the potential for flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of
pollution in a watercourse.
e. Ensure that the proposal will be consistent with RMC 4-4-130D3, Restrictions for Critical Areas –
General, and 4-4-130D4, Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas.
f. Ensure that the proposal will be consistent with RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program
Regulations.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 171
6. Time Limits for Routine Vegetation Management Permits: Any permit for routine vegetation
management shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance. An extension may be granted by the
Administrator for a period of one year upon application by the property owner or manager. Application
for such an extension must be made at least thirty (30) days in advance of the expiration of the original
permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension.
E. APPEALS:
Appeal of the decision to grant, grant with conditions, or deny a routine vegetation management permit
shall be made consistent with RMC 4-8-110, Appeals.
F. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
Unless otherwise specified, violations of this Section are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 172
4-10-095 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES,
STRUCTURES, AND SITES
A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date
of the applicable Shoreline Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to
present regulations or standards of the program, may be continued; provided, that:
A. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES:
Nonconforming structures within shoreline jurisdiction shall be governed by RMC 4-10-050, this section
with the exception of docks and piers, which shall be governed by RMC 4-3-090E7, Piers and Docks,
and shoreline stabilization structures, which shall be governed by RMC 4-3-090F4, Shoreline
Stabilization.
B. NONCONFORMING USES:
Nonconforming uses within shoreline jurisdiction shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060., except where
superseded by Subsection E or Subsection F of this Section.
C. NONCONFORMING SITE:
Nonconforming sites within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be governed by this Section.
A lot which does not conform to development regulations on a site not related to the characteristics of a
structure including, but not limited to, the vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization, landscaping,
parking, fence, driveway, street opening, pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the
district in which it is located due to changes in Code requirements, condemnation or annexation.
D. PRE-EXISTING LEGAL LOT: RESERVED.
Reserved.
E. CONTINUATION OF USE:
The continuation of existing use and activities does not require prior review or approval. Operation,
maintenance, or repair of existing legally established structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities,
public or private roads, or drainage systems that do not require construction permits are allowed. Such
improvements are only allowed if the activity does not modify the character, scope, or size of the
original structure or facility or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the sensitive area or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 173
buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation,
maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation management performed in
accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing maintenance of structures,
infrastructure, or utilities; provided, that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing
maintenance, do not expand further into the sensitive area, are not the result of an expansion of the
structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species.
F. PARTIAL AND FULL COMPLIANCE, ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE OR SITE:
This Section is applied The following provisions shall apply to lawfully established uses, buildings
and/or structures, and related site development that do not meet the specific standards of the Shoreline
Master Program, including but not limited to maximum building coverage and impervious area, building
setbacks, and vegetation conservation buffers. Alteration or expansion of existing structures or
impervious areas may take place with partial compliance with the standards of this Code, as provided
below, provided that: the proposed alteration or expansion will result in no net loss of shoreline
ecological function; and developable portions of lots shall not be subject to flooding or require structural
flood hazard reduction measures within a channel migration zone or floodway to support intended
development during the life of the development or use. In no case shall a structure with extending into a
nonconforming shoreline buffer or setback from the shoreline be allowed to extend further waterward
than the existing structure. Alterations of existing structures or developed sites shall not result in or
increase any nonconforming condition unless permitted by this Section.
1. Partial Compliance for Non-Single -Family Development: The following provisions shall apply to
all development except single family:
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
Alteration
Without
Expansion
Expansion or remodel that does not
change the building footprint or
increase impervious surface.
No site changes required.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 174
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
Minor
Alteration
Expansion of building footprint by
up to 500 sq. ft. or up to 10%
(whichever is less); or
• Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F1, Vegetation Conservation,
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of at least 50% of the area
between an existing building and the
water’s edge; provided, that the area to be
revegetated does not exceed 10 ft., unless
a greater area is desired by the applicant,
or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved
by Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development
or designee that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a
water-dependent use.
Expansion of impervious surface by
up to 1,000 sq. ft. or up to 10%
(whichever is less); or.
Remodeling or renovation that
equals less than 30% of the
replacement value of the existing
structures or improvements,
excluding plumbing, electrical and
mechanical systems and normal
repair and maintenance.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 175
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
Moderate
Alteration
Expansion of building footprint by
more than 500 sq. ft. or between
10.1-25% (whichever is less); or
• Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F1, Vegetation Conservation,
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of at least 80% of the area
between an existing building and the
water’s edge, or at least 10 ft., or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved
by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development
or designee that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a water-
dependent use.
• Piers and docks shall be required to replace
any solid decking with light penetrating
surfacing materials.
Expansion of impervious surface by
more than 1,000 sq. ft., or between
10.1-25% (whichever is less); or.
Remodeling or renovation that
equals 30.1-50% of the
replacement value of the existing
structures or improvements,
excluding plumbing, electrical and
mechanical systems and normal
repair and maintenance.
Major
Alteration
Expansion of building footprint by
more than 25%; or • Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either: Expansion of impervious surface by
more than 25%.; or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 176
Remodeling or renovation that
equals more than 50% of the
replacement value of the existing
structures or improvements,
excluding plumbing, electrical and
mechanical systems and normal
repair and maintenance.
o Full compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F1, Vegetation Conservation,
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of the full required* buffer, or
100% of the area between an existing
building and the water’s edge if the full
buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft.,
or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved
by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development
or designee that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a water-
dependent use.
• Piers and docks shall be required to replace
any solid decking with light penetrating
surfacing materials.
• Developments with existing shoreline
stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts of
shoreline stabilization in one of the following
ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not
conforming to, or otherwise permitted by,
the provisions of this Code shall be
reviewed and upgraded according to the
standards of RMC 4-3-090F4aiii,
Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives
Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional and
approved by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that would
identify near shore mitigation to improve
shoreline function or values on-site, or
o If the two alternatives above are
infeasible, then the project proponent shall
contribute to an off-site vegetation
conservation fund, in accordance with
RMC 4-3-090F1k.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 177
*The full buffer and/ setback as required in RMC 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified
under RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation.
2. Partial Compliance for Single Family Development: Lawfully constructed single family homes,
their appurtenances, and impervious area built or installed before the adoption of the Shoreline Master
Program (October 24, 2011) shall be considered conforming if alteration expansion or replacement is
consistent with the compliance standards below:
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
Alteration
Without
Expansion
Expansion Alteration or replacement
remodel that does not change the
building footprint or increase
impervious surface.
No site changes required.
Minor
Alteration
Alteration or replacement that expands
Expansion of the building footprint by
up to 500 sq. ft. outside of the
required* setback and buffer; or
No site changes required.
Alteration or replacement that expands
Expansion of the impervious surface
by up to 1,000 sq. ft. outside of the
required* setback and buffer.
Moderate
Alteration
Alteration or replacement that expands
Expansion of the building footprint:
• within the required* setback or
buffer in any amount,; or
• total expansion of 500 sq. ft. to
1,000 sq. ft.; or
Alteration of replacement that expands
impervious surface:
• within the required* setback or
buffer in any amount;
• or total expansion of 1,000 sq. ft.
to 1,500 sq. ft.
• Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F1, Vegetation Conservation,
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of at least 80% of the area
between an existing building and the
water’s edge; provided, that the area to
be revegetated need not be more than
25% of the lot depth in feet, or
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 178
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
Expansion of impervious surface
within the required* setback in any
amount, or total expansion of 1,000
sq. ft. to 1,500 sq.ft.
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved
by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development
or designee that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Docks shall be required to replace solid
decking with light penetrating surfacing
materials.
Major
Alteration
Alteration or replacement that expands
Expansion of the building footprint by
more than 1,000 sq. ft., or
• Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Full compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F1, Vegetation Conservation,
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of the full required* buffer, or
100% of the area between an existing
building and the water’s edge if the full
buffer cannot be planted, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared
by a qualified professional and approved
by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development
or designee that would provide at least
equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Docks shall be required to replace solid
decking with light penetrating surfacing
materials.
•Developments with existing shoreline
stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts of
Alteration of replacement that expands
Expansion of impervious surface by
more than 1,500 sq. ft.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 179
Alteration of an Existing Structure Footprint
and/or Impervious Surface(s)
Compliance Standard
shoreline stabilization in one of the following
ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not
conforming to, or otherwise permitted
by, the provisions of this Code shall be
reviewed and upgraded according to the
standards of RMC 4-3-090F4aiii,
Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives
Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional and
approved by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee that
would identify near shore mitigation to
improve shoreline function or values on-
site, or
o If the two alternatives above are
infeasible, then the project proponent
shall contribute to an off-site vegetation
conservation fund, in accordance with
RMC 4-3-090F1k.
*The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090.D.7.a, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified
under RMC 4-3-090.F.1, Vegetation Conservation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 180
4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B:
BUFFER, SHORELINES: A strip of land that is designated to permanently remain vegetated in an
undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic, riparian, or wetland site from upland
impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. Uses and activities within the
buffer are extremely limited. The buffer is measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the
OHWM.
4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D:
DEVELOPABLE AREA: Land area outside of critical areas, critical area and shoreline buffers, and
public rights-of-way that is otherwise developable.
DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)
A use consisting of the construction or of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping;
filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or
any other projects of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of
the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any state of water level. This does not
include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or
redevelopment.
4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F:
FLOODWAY: The channel of river or other watercourse and the abutting land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than one foot (1').
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 181
FLOODWAY: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) For
purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the
definition of “shoreland,” “floodway” means the area as identified in a Master Program, that either: (i)
Has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance rate maps or
floodway maps; or (ii) consists of tThose portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits
of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal
condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground
cover condition. Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway, tThe floodway shall not
include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected flood waters by flood control
devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the State, or a political
subdivision of the State.
4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L:
LOT MEASUREMENTS:
A. Lot Depth: Except for lots abutting a shoreline of the State, lot depth shall be the horizontal
distance between the front and rear lot lines, measured from midpoint to midpoint; except in the
case of flag lots and irregularly shaped lots. For flag lots, the “flagpole” portion of the lot shall be
ignored for the purpose of calculating lot depth. For irregularly shaped lots and lots without an
obvious rear lot line, the lot depth shall be measured to the midpoint of an imaginary line at least
fifteen feet (15') in length located entirely within the lot and farthest removed and parallel to the front
lot line or its tangent. For lots abutting a shoreline of the State, lot depth shall be measured from
and perpendicular to the OHWM to the opposing and most distant lot line or to an easement
containing existing physical improvements for road access for two (2) or more lots.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
EXHIBIT A 182
B. Lot Width: Width of a lot shall be measured perpendicular to and at the midpoint of the line used
to determine lot depth.
4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S:
SETBACK: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A
required open space land area specified in the Shoreline Master Program, measured horizontally
upland from and perpendicular to the OHWM Vegetation Conservation Buffer within which no buildings
or other permanent structures may be constructed and that serves to protect the vegetation
conservation buffer during development activities, use, and routine maintenance of structures and
improvements landward of the building setback.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. b)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN
INTERIM ZONING CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE PHASED OPENING OF
BUSINESSES FOLLOWING THE COVID-19 DECLARED PUBLIC HEALTH
EMERGENCY; TEMPORARILY ESTABLISHING A PERMIT TO BE KNOWN AS AN
“ECONOMIC RECOVERY REVOCABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT” FOR BUSINESSES;
TEMPORARILY ALLOWING “ECONOMIC RECOVERY SIGNS” FOR BUSINESSES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, earlier this year, the World Health Organization announced novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) is officially a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency because of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Governor also declared a State of Emergency due to COVID-
19; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2020, the Mayor proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID-19;
and
WHEREAS, following recommended public health best practices, including social
distancing, is having significant negative economic effects on the national, regional, and local
economy, including businesses and workers in the Renton area who cannot work remotely,
including those related to restaurants and other businesses that provide or could provide
operations on right-of-way areas fronting such businesses; and
WHEREAS, as the business-related restrictions are relaxed by the State of Washington in
phases, including opening of restaurants and other businesses with reduced capacities, flexibility
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
in allowing use of outdoor areas, including some City rights-of-way, could help some businesses
during these challenging times; and
WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") includes several provisions identifying
different types of right-of-way permits, including RMC Section 4-8-120, RMC Chapter 9-2, and
RMC Chapter 9-17, which apply to the use of right-of-way for business operations such as
sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up, and outdoor restaurant seating; and
WHEREAS, establishing a new type of right-of-way permit to be known as an “Economic
Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit” which is similar to existing right-of-way permits but
does not carry a permit fee could assist businesses that are able to use public right-of-way and/or
their private parking lot areas in order to expand the area within which customers could be
served – in keeping with appropriate social distancing standards and other public health
guidelines – could help struggling businesses including restaurants survive and help keep the
employees who depend on the jobs that have been impacted and jeopardized by the coronavirus
shut-downs employed; and
WHEREAS, to assist in the recovery of businesses including restaurant-related businesses,
it is reasonable that this new Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit be available to
businesses for a temporary period, through December 31, 2020 or the date that the City enters
Phase 4 of the Governor’s Safe Start plan, whichever occurs first; and
WHEREAS, some businesses are relying on special events such as grand re-openings and
the signage associated with communicating that the business has reopened; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
WHEREAS, to assist in the recovery of such businesses, it is also reasonable for the City to
temporarily allow signs to be known as “Economic Recovery Signs” in the form of A-Frame Signs
and Event Signs, as further specified in this ordinance, through December 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for an interim zoning
control ordinance to establish the Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of Way Permit and to
establish and allow Economic Recovery Signs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject of this ordinance complies with the
Governor’s Proclamation 20-28, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. The above recitals are adopted as findings of fact in support of the interim
controls adopted herein pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, and are found to be
true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. As an interim zoning control, Council hereby temporarily establishes a new
permit to be known as an Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of Way Permit in the City of
Renton. Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permits shall be:
(1) Available to businesses seeking to use the public right-of-way fronting their businesses
and/or their private parking lots abutting their businesses to expand the area within which
customers are served, such as for sidewalk sales, sidewalk pick-up, and/or outdoor restaurant
seating. Obtaining an Economic Recovery Revocable Right-of-Way Permit for such uses shall not
excuse a business from complying with applicable public health requirements and guidelines,
including social distancing; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
(2) In effect from the date of issuance through December 31, 2020 or the date that the
City enters Phase 4 of the Governor’s Safe Start plan, whichever occurs first; and
(3) Subject to the same application and review process as a revocable right-of-way permit
issued under RMC 4-8-120 and RMC Chapter 9-2, except that no application fee or permit fee
shall be required; and
(4) Subject to leasehold excise tax to the same extent as a revocable right-of-way permit
issued under RMC 4-8-120 and RMC Chapter 9-2.
SECTION III. As an interim zoning control, Council hereby temporarily establishes a new
sign type to be known as an Economic Recovery Sign in the City of Renton. Economic Recovery
Signs shall be:
(1) Allowed for businesses to advertise economic recovery-related events such as grand
re-openings or expanded services or capacities; and
(2) Allowed in the form of A-Frame Signs and Event Signs, as further specified below; and
(3) If an A-Frame Sign, subject to the following standards and requirements drawn from
RMC 4-4-100.J.5:
a. Number:
i. Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: Only one of these signs is
permitted per business per street frontage.
ii. Elsewhere in the City: One of these signs is permitted per business per
street frontage and, in addition, an additional sign is permitted to be located
abutting the business and building to which the sign relates.
b. Location Requirements:
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
i. Permitted Location:
(1) Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: A-frame signs must be
placed against the building and business to which the sign relates.
(2) Elsewhere in the City: A-frame signs may be located on the
public sidewalk abutting the business site and/or within the
landscaping area on or abutting the business site, however, A-frame
signs cannot be placed in the landscape strip between the curb and
outer edge of the public sidewalk. Additionally, for businesses
located within shopping centers, an additional A-frame sign may be
placed against the building and business to which the sign relates.
ii. Pedestrian Clearance: A minimum of four feet (4') of unobstructed
sidewalk area between the outer edge of the sign and the street curb is
required.
iii. Clear Vision Area: No sign shall be located as to pose a danger and violate
the clear vision area specified in subsection RMC 4-4-100.C.6, Prohibited
Signs. Where a traffic vision hazard is created, the City may require a
modification to the height or location of a sign to the degree necessary to
eliminate the hazard.
c. Size: Signs shall be no larger than thirty-two inches (32") wide and thirty-six
inches (36") tall.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
d. Construction Specifications and Materials: The sign must be professionally
manufactured of durable material(s). No lighting or attachments, such as balloons
are permitted.
e. Maintenance and Appearance: Signs must be maintained in accordance with
the provisions of RMC 4-4-100.D.3, Sign Maintenance Required, and subsection
RMC 4-4-100.D.4, Appearance of Signs.
f. Alteration of Landscaping Prohibited: No landscaping may be damaged or
modified to accommodate an A-frame sign. The City may require replacement of
any damaged landscaping pursuant to RMC 4-4-070.Q, Damaged Landscaping.
g. Removal upon Close of Business Required: A-frame signs shall not be displayed
during nonbusiness hours.
h. Proof of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement for Signs on Public Right-of-
Way: Before placing any such A-Frame sign, the business must provide the
Community & Economic Development Department’s Development Services
Division with (1) proof of general commercial liability insurance (certificate of
liability insurance) meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-100.L.4 and (2) a signed
hold harmless agreement that specifies that the owner of the sign will defend,
indemnify, and hold the City harmless for any loss, injuries, damage, claims or
lawsuit, including attorney’s fees that arise from the sign.
i. Confiscation of Signs: Signs that do not comply with these provisions may be
confiscated by the City; and
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
(4) If an Event Sign, subject to the following standards and requirements drawn from RMC
4-4-100.J.6:
a. [Intentionally omitted.]
b. Types of Event Signage Allowed: Any combination of the following types of
signage are permitted: balloons, pole/wall strung and wall-hung banners not
exceeding one hundred (100) square feet each in size, pole-hung banners not
exceeding twenty (20) square feet each in size, flags, inflatable statuary,
pennants/streamers, searchlights, wind animated objects, and other similar
advertising devices approved by the Development Services Division. Rigid portable
signs are also allowed provided the sign is a maximum of thirty-two (32) square
feet in area on one face per sign not exceeding six feet (6') in height. Rigid portable
signs are limited to one per street frontage outside the Automall.
c. [Intentionally omitted.]
d. [Intentionally omitted.]
e. Placement Limitations for Event Signs:
i. Roof: No sign or advertising device shall be placed on top of a roof or extend
vertically above the fascia of the building.
ii. Perimeter Street Landscaping: Event signage shall not be located within
required perimeter street landscaping; and
(5) Allowed without a permit and without a fee through December 31, 2020.
SECTION IV. The Mayor or his designee is authorized to implement any and all
administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
SECTION V. A public hearing will be scheduled and held within sixty (60) days of the
passage of this ordinance.
SECTION VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. The City Council declares an emergency for the protection of the public
welfare and to enable the purpose and intent of this ordinance to be accomplished. This
ordinance shall take effect immediately when passed by the City Council. The City Clerk shall
cause to be published a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary
shall consist of this ordinance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2020.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2020.
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:2115:7/8/2020
AGENDA ITEM # 7. a)