Loading...
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)