HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_KittitasCountyHMP_Volume2_For Adoption2019 Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES
Kittitas County Public Works Department
January 2019
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
January 2019
Kittitas County
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES
JANUARY 2019
Prepared for:
Kittitas County
205 West 5th Avenue, Suite 108
Ellensburg, Washington 98926
Prepared by:
Dewberry
8401 Arlington Blvd
Fairfax, VA 22031
Jacobs Engineering Inc.
32 North 3rd Street, Suite 304
Yakima, WA 98901
Cover Photo Credits:
Bottom-left photo: Washington Department of Natural Resources
Top-left and bottom-right photos: Kittitas County Conservation District
Top-right photo: Kittitas County
i
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan;
Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1— INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 1. Planning Partner Participation ............................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. The Planning Partnership ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Annex-Preparation Process .................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Final Coverage Under the Plan .............................................................................................................. 4
1.5. Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... 5
PART 2— ANNEXES FOR MUNICIPALITIES .................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Unincorporated Kittitas County Annex ................................................................. 1
2.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
2.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
2.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.5. Capability Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 3
2.7. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 3
2.8. Hazard Area Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 3. City of Cle Elum Annex .......................................................................................... 1
3.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
3.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
3.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
3.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
3.5. Capability Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 2
3.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 3
3.7. Hazard Area Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 4. City of Ellensburg Annex ....................................................................................... 1
4.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
4.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
4.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 3
4.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 3
4.5. Capability Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 3
4.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 4
4.7. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 4
4.8. Additional Comments ............................................................................................................................ 4
4.9. Hazard Area Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 5. City of Roslyn Annex .............................................................................................. 1
5.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
5.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
5.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
5.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
5.5. Capability Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 3
5.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 3
5.7. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 3
5.8. Hazard Area Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 6. Town of South Cle Elum ......................................................................................... 1
6.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
6.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
6.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
6.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
6.5. Capability Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 2
6.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 2
PART 3— FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ANNEXES ....................................................... 1
Chapter 7. Fire District #1 Annex ............................................................................................. 1
7.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
7.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
7.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
7.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
7.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans .......................................................................................................... 2
7.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ....................................................................................... 2
7.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 2
Chapter 8. Fire District #7 Annex ............................................................................................. 1
8.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
8.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
8.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 3
8.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 3
8.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans .......................................................................................................... 3
8.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ....................................................................................... 3
8.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 3
8.8. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 3
8.9. Additional Comments ............................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 9. Fire District #51 Annex ........................................................................................... 1
9.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................... 1
9.2. Jurisdiction Profile ................................................................................................................................. 1
9.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................................. 2
9.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 2
9.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans .......................................................................................................... 2
9.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ....................................................................................... 3
9.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ....................................... 3
9.8. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 3
PART 4— UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEXES .......................................................................... 1
Chapter 10. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Annex .............................................................. 1
10.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................. 1
10.2. Jurisdiction Profile ............................................................................................................................... 1
10.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ............................................................................ 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
10.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 2
10.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans ........................................................................................................ 2
10.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ..................................................................................... 2
10.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ..................................... 2
Chapter 11. Kittitas PUD #1 Annex .......................................................................................... 1
11.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................. 1
11.2. Jurisdiction Profile ............................................................................................................................... 1
11.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ............................................................................ 2
11.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 2
11.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans ........................................................................................................ 2
11.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ..................................................................................... 3
11.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ..................................... 3
PART 5— SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNEXES ......................................................................... 1
Chapter 12. Kittitas School District #403 Annex ..................................................................... 1
12.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................. 1
12.2. Jurisdiction Profile ............................................................................................................................... 1
12.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ............................................................................ 2
12.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 2
12.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans ........................................................................................................ 2
12.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ..................................................................................... 2
12.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ..................................... 2
Chapter 13. Cle Elum – Roslyn School District #404 Annex .................................................. 1
13.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................. 1
13.2. Jurisdiction Profile ............................................................................................................................... 1
13.3. Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ............................................................................ 2
13.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 2
13.5. Applicable Regulations and Plans ........................................................................................................ 2
13.6. Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs ..................................................................................... 3
13.7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Initiatives ..................................... 3
PART 6— CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEXES ........................................................... 1
Chapter 14. Kittitas County Conservation District Annex ...................................................... 2
14.1. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ............................................................................................. 2
14.2. Jurisdiction Profile ............................................................................................................................... 2
14.3. Kittitas County Conservation District Natural Hazard History ........................................................... 3
14.4. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 4
14.5. Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 4
14.6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of recommended Initiatives ...................................... 4
14.7. Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ....................................................................... 4
Appendices
A. Planning Partner Expectations
B. Procedures for Linking to the Hazard Mitigation Plan
C. Jurisdictional Annex Instructions and Template for Municipalities
D. Jurisdictional Annex Instructions and Template for Special-Purpose Districts
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 1—
INTRODUCTION
1
Chapter 1.
Planning Partner Participation
1.1. BACKGROUND
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard
mitigation. Such planning efforts require all participating jurisdictions to fully participate in the process and
formally adopt the resulting planning document. Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR)
states:
“Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as
each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.”
(Section 201.6.a(4))
In the preparation of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan, a Planning Partnership was formed to
leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) for as
many eligible local governments in Kittitas County as possible. The DMA defines a local government as
follows:
“Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special
district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of
governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate
government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or
authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural
community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.”
There are two types of Planning Partners in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities: incorporated
municipalities (cities and the County); and special purpose districts.
1.2. THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent
The planning team solicited the participation of the County and all County-recognized special purpose
districts at the outset of this project. All eligible local governments and special purpose districts in the
planning area were invited to participate.
All interested local governments were provided with a list of planning partner expectations developed by
the planning team and were informed of the obligations required for participation. Local governments
wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a “letter of intent to
participate” that agreed to the planning partner expectations (see Appendix A) and designated a point of
contact for their jurisdiction. In all, formal commitment was received from 13 planning partners by the
planning team, and the Kittitas County Planning Partnership was formed.
Maps for each participating city are provided in the individual annex for that city. These maps will be
updated periodically as changes to the partnership occur, either through linkage or by a partner dropping
out due to a failure to participate.
Planning Partner Expectations
The planning team developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were confirmed at
the kickoff meeting:
– Each partner will provide a “Letter of Intent to Participate.”
CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
2
– Each partner will support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering
Committee overseeing the development of the plan. Support includes allowing this body to
make decisions regarding plan development and scope on behalf of the partnership.
– Each partner will provide support for the public involvement strategy developed by the Steering
Committee in the form of mailing lists, possible meeting space, and media outreach such as
newsletters, newspapers or direct-mailed brochures.
– Each partner will participate in plan development activities such as Steering Committee
meetings, public meetings or open houses, workshops and planning partner training
sessions, and public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
Attendance will be tracked at such activities, and attendance records will be used to track and
document participation for each planning partner. No minimum level of participation will be
established, but each planning partner should attempt to attend all such activities.
– Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans,
and ordinances specific to hazards identified within the planning area to determine the
existence of plans, studies or ordinances not consistent with the equivalent documents reviewed
in preparation of the County plan. For example: if a planning partner has a fl oodplain
management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent with any of the County’s
basin plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation into the plan for the
partner’s area.
– Each partner will be expected to review the risk assessment and identify hazards and
vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide jurisdiction-specific
mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and
vulnerability will be up to each partner.
– Each partner will be expected to review the mitigation recommendations chosen for the overall
county and determine if they will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each
jurisdiction consistent with the overall plan recommendations will need to be identified,
prioritized and reviewed to determine their benefits and costs.
– Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will
oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.
– Each partner will be required to sponsor at least one public meeting to present the draft plan at
least two weeks prior to adoption.
– Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
It should be noted that by adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation
and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner
being dropped from the partnership by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope
of this plan.
Linkage Procedures
Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this hazard mitigation plan may
comply with DMA requirements by linking to this plan following the procedures outlined in Appendix B.
1.3. ANNEX-PREPARATION PROCESS
Templates
Templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. Since
special purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were
CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
3
created for the two types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of
44 CFR would be met, based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation. Each partner was asked
to participate in a technical assistance workshop during which key elements of the template were completed
by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The templates were
set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the DMA -required elements that
are specific for each partner. The templates and their instructions can be found in Appendices C and D to
this volume of the hazard mitigation plan.
Workshop
Workshops were held for Planning Partners to learn about the templates and the overall planning process.
Topics included the DMA, the Kittitas County plan background, the templates, risk ranking, developing the
action plan, and cost/benefit review.
In the writing of this plan, separate sessions were held for special purpose districts and municipalities, in
order to address each type of partner’s needs. The sessions provided technical assistance and an overview
of the template completion process. Attendance at this workshop was mandatory under the planning partner
expectations established by the Steering Committee. There was 95-percent attendance of the partnership at
these sessions. During the 2019 update process, individual meetings were held with each participating
jurisdiction to update each annex.
In the risk-ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to rank each risk specifically for its
jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population or facilities. Cities were asked to base this ranking on
probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special purpose
districts were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their
constituency, their vital facilities and the facilities’ functionality after an event. The methodology followed
that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1. A principal objective of this exercise was
to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk assessment as a tool to support other planning and
hazard mitigation processes. Tools utilized during these sessions included the following:
– The Kittitas County risk assessment results
– Hazard maps for all hazards of concern
– Special district boundary maps that illustrated the sphere of influence for each special purpose
district partner
– Hazard mitigation catalogs
• Federal funding and technical assistance catalogs
Prioritization
44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning
team and steering committee developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that meets the needs
of the partnership and the requirements of 44 CFR. The actions were prioritized according to the following
criteria:
– High Priority—Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is
secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5
years (i.e., short term project) once funded.
– Medium Priority—Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires
special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and
project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded.
CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
4
– Low Priority—Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has
not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for comp letion is long term (5 to
10 years).
These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a
parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority
because of the uncertainty of a funding source, but be changed to high once a funding source has been
identified. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through
the plan maintenance strategy.
Benefit/Cost Review
44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed
actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was
qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A review of the apparent
benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning
subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to costs and benefits as follows:
– Cost ratings:
– High—Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action;
implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative s ource (for
example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
– Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-
apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have
to be spread over multiple years.
– Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can
be part of an existing, ongoing program.
– Benefit ratings:
– High—The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life
and property.
– Medium—The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to
life and property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
– Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over
medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
It should be noted that for many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought
under FEMA’s HMGP or PDM programs. Both of these programs require detailed benefit/cost analysis as
part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application
preparation. The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking
financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to
define “benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan.
1.4. FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN
Of the 19 committed planning partners, 12 fully met the participation requirements specified by the Steering
Committee. The principal requirement not met by the other partners was completion of the jurisdictional
annex template following the workshops. Eighteen of the partners attended the workshop, but only 12
subsequently submitted completed templates. Only those 12 jurisdictions are included in this volume and
CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
5
will seek DMA compliance under this plan. The remaining jurisdictions will need to follow the linkage
procedures described in Appendix B of this volume. Table 1-1 lists the jurisdictions that submitted letters
of intent and their ultimate status in this plan.
Table 1-1. Planning Partner Status
Jurisdiction Letter of
Intent
Attended
Workshop?
Completed
Template?
Will Be Covered
by This Plan?
Kittitas County Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Cle Elum Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Ellensburg Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Roslyn Yes Yes Yes Yes
Town of South Cle Elum Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire District #1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire District #7 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire District #51 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kittitas PUD #1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kittitas School District #403 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cle Elum – Roslyn School District #404 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kittitas County Conservation District Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.5. ACRONYMS
The following acronyms are used in this volume of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan:
– AFG: Assistance to Firefighters Grant
– CDS: Community Development
Services
– CEMC: Cle Elum Municipal Code
– CERSD: Cle Elum Roslyn School
District
– CWU: Central Washington University
– ECC: Ellensburg City Code
– FEMA: Federal Emergency
Management Agency
– FIS: Flood Insurance Study
– GMA: Growth Management Act
– HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
– KCC: Kittitas County Code
– KCFD: Kittitas County Fire District
– NOAA: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
– PDM: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant
Program
– PUD: Public utility district
– RCW: Revised Code of Washington
– SHELDUS: Spatial Hazard Events and
Losses Database for the United States
– SMP: Shoreline Management Plan
– WDFW: Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife
– WSDOT: Washington State
Department of Transportation
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 2—
ANNEXES FOR MUNICIPALITIES
1
Chapter 2.
Unincorporated Kittitas County Annex
2.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Karen Hodges
Department of Public Works
411 N Ruby Street, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-962-7523
Email: karen.hodges@co.kittitas.wa.us
Mark Cook, Director
Department of Public Works
411 N Ruby Street, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-962-7523
Email: mark.cook@co.kittitas.wa.us
2.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about Kittitas County and its history:
Date of Incorporation— November 1883.
Current Population— The population of Kittitas County was 46,205 as of July 1st, 2017 based on
the US Census population estimates.
Population Growth— Kittitas County was the fifth fastest growing county based on populations
in the 2000 and 2010 census, with a growth rate of 2.3 percent. Between 2010 and 2017, Kittitas
County experienced a 1.8 percent growth rate.
Location and Description— Kittitas County is located in the center of Washington State. It is
bounded to the west by the crest of the Cascade Range, separating Kittitas County from the
Seattle/Puget Sound region. It is bounded to the north by the Wenatchee National Forest and
Alpine Lakes Wilderness region. The eastern boundary is the Columbia River, separating
Kittitas County and the agricultural lands of the Columbia Plateau region. Its southern
boundary is the urban and agricultural region of the Yakima Valley. The county has a total area
of 2,333 square miles, 36 square miles of which is water.
Kittitas County has a diverse landscape, ranging from forested Alpine Lakes Wilderness and
snow-capped Cascade Mountains in the north and west areas of the County to the scabland and
cliff-lined canyons of the Columbia River and Yakima River in the east and south areas. In the
valleys are rich farmlands that produce the County’s largest cash crop-timothy hay. Timothy
hay is grown commercially by estimated 200-250 farmers on 25,000 to 30,000 acres of land at
an estimated annual value of more than $30 million.
Jurisdiction Vulnerability to Hazards— Unincorporated Kittitas County has an overall low
vulnerability to avalanche, drought, and volcano hazards, and an overall high vulnerability to
severe weather events. While many areas of Unincorporated Kittitas County are exposed to an
avalanche hazard, vulnerability is relatively low due to minimal development in the Cascade
Range. Based on the three dam failure scenarios used in this plan, 10% of the population and
6% of property is at risk of dam failure. The area has high exposure to earthquakes, and various
earthquake scenarios result in losses up to 3% of building value. Unincorporated Kittitas
County has 772 buildings (5% of assessed building value) located in the 100- or 500-year
floodplain, and therefore a moderate vulnerability to flood events. It is the only jurisdiction
within Kittitas County with buildings exposed to Landslide Hazard Areas. 365 buildings are
exposed, which represent 3.6% of the area’s assessed value. The areas also has a high
vulnerability to wildfires, with 34% of buildings exposed to the 0-30 Year Fire Interval.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
2
Brief History— The County was organized in November 1883 by the Washington Territorial
Legislature. It was partitioned from what was then the northern part of Yakima County. There
are numerous interpretations of the name, which is from the language of the Kittitas American
Indians. According to one source, it “has been said to mean everything from ‘white chalk’ to
‘shale rock’ to ‘shoal people’ to ‘land of plenty.’ Most anthropologists and historians concede
that each interpretation has some validity depending upon the particular dialect spoken.”
Climate— Kittitas County has a wide range of annual precipitation: from 147 inches in western
Kittitas County to 6 inches in eastern Kittitas County. The average seasonal snowfall varies
from 434 inches each season at Snoqualmie Pass to less than 30 inches in eastern Kittitas
County.
Countywide, the average winter maximum temperature is around 30 degrees F and the average
daily minimum temperature is around 20 degrees F. The lowest temperature on record, which
occurred at Snoqualmie Pass on February 1, 1922, is –48 degrees F. In summer, the average
maximum temperature is around 65 degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is
around 50 degrees F. The highest temperature, which occurred in Ellensburg on July 26, 1928,
is 110 degrees.
Governing Body Format— Kittitas County has three elected Commissioners who are empowered
to set county policy, adopt laws, implement them, and, except for the responsibilities of other
elected officials, carry out day-to-day operations of the County.
Development Trends— With its proximity to the Seattle metropolitan area and vast supply of
recreational land, Kittitas County has been called “Seattle’s backyard.” Most development in
the Cle Elum area has been for recreation or second homes. Most of the development has
occurred in mountainous and forested areas, and many hillsides have been cleared and roads
constructed to provide access to these lands. The County has also seen a rise over the past
decade of families buying houses in the Cle Elum area and commuting daily to the Seattle area.
In the Ellensburg area, growth and development have been steady. Much development has been
on the flat lands of the Kittitas Valley on what was previously farmland.
2.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 2-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards in the county. Repetitive loss records are as follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 14 in Kittitas County, 3 of
which are in unincorporated areas.
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
2.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 2-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
2.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 2-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 2-4. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 2-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table 2-6.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
3
2.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 2-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 2-8 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 2-9 ummarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
2.7. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
Kittitas County has prioritized the collection of LIDAR data, a nd will continue to do so in the future.
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Kittitas County were available at the time of the 2019
plan update. The County will continue to update flood maps and regulations with any updated FIRMs or
other relevant flood data. The County will also prioritize updating data on critical facilities. This will include
developing a process for collecting and maintaining the data, adopting a database to store the data, and
coordinating with GIS staff to create geospatial records of the critical facilities.
2.8. HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps for the Kittitas County area are included in Volume 1 of this hazard
mitigation plan. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan,
and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Table 2-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment*
Landslide 06/07/1970
A steep hillside about 7 miles northwest of
Ellensburg tumbled down, tore out an
irrigation flume, destroyed a half mile of
roadway and pushed about 1,000 feet of
the highway into the Yakima River.
Landslide 08/28/1971 N/A
Severe Storms And Flooding (DR-492) 12/13/1975 N/A
Drought 3/31/1977 N/A
Severe Storms, Mudslides, & Flooding (DR-545) 12/10/1977 N/A
Volcanic Eruption, Mt. St. Helens (DR-623) 5/21/1980 N/A
Severe Storms & Flooding (DR-883) 11/26/1990 N/A
Landslide 4/24/1995
A slide and debris flow 120 feet wide and
800 feet long took out a large section of
Kittitas Reclamation District main canal
about 12 miles west of Ellensburg south of
the Bristol Flats area, sending debris into
the Yakima River.
Severe Storms, High Wind, And Flooding (DR-
1079) 1/3/1996 N/A
High Winds, Severe Storms, & Flooding (DR-1100) 2/9/1996 N/A
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
4
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment*
Severe Winter Storms, Land & Muds Slides, &
Flooding (DR-1159) 1/17/1997 N/A
Severe Storm & Landslide 7/3/1998
A severe thunderstorm dropped more than
3 inches of rain in less than 1 hour on the
flanks of Manastash Ridge and caused
swift-moving debris flows in scoured
channels down the slopes of the Yakima
River Canyon.
Earthquake (DR-1361) 3/1/2001 N/A
Wind 5/19/2001 $20,000a
Wind 10/23/2001 $30,000a
Winter Weather 11/28/2001 $50,000a
Elk Heights Fire 7/30/2004 N/A
Avalanche 1/7/2009 $500,000a
Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides, &
Flooding (DR-1817) 1/30/2009 $10,000,000a
Severe Winter Storm And Record And Near Record
Snow (DR-1825) 3/2/2009 N/A
Landslide 10/10/2009 $12,500,000a
Lightning 09/19/2010 $60,000a
Wind 11/15/2010 $33,333a
Severe Winter Storm, Flooding, Landslides, And
Mudslides (DR-1963) 2/25/2011 N/A
Severe Storm & Flooding 5/15/2011
Wildfire (Taylor Bridge) 8/13/2012 $59.8 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Table Mountain) 9/19/2012 $3.2 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Colockum Tarps) 7/29/2013 $7.6 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Saddle Mountain) 7/18/2014
Wildfire (Snag Canyon) 8/2/2014 $14 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Jolly Mountain) 7/2/2017-
7/22/2017 $55 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Ryegrass Coulee) 7/10/2018 $3 Million Dollars
*Damage estimates from SHELDUS
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
5
Table 2-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x
Impact)
1 Wildfire 54
2 Flood 39
3 Earthquake 36
4 Drought 27
4 Severe Weather 27
5 Landslide 18
6 Avalanche 18
7 Dam Failure 13
8 Volcano 9
9 Seiche 6
Table 2-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Capability Category Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes No No Yes
KCC 14.04 Building Code-
adopts the 2015 edition of the
IBC
Zoning Code Yes No No Yes KCC 17 Zoning
Subdivisions Yes No No Yes KCC 16 Subdivisions
Post Disaster Recovery No No No No
Real Estate Disclosure No No No Yes RCW 64.06.020
Growth Management Yes No No Yes RCW 36.70A
Site Plan Review Yes No No No KCC 14.04 Building Code
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical
areas)
Yes Yes No Yes
KCC 14.08 Flood Damage
Protection, 2003;
Flood Control Zone District
Critical Areas Yes Yes No Yes KCC 17A.05 Critical Areas
(2018 Draft Form)
Planning Documents
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
6
General Plan Yes No No Yes
The Kittitas County
Comprehensive Plan is
mandated by the Growth
Management Act. Updated
annually.
Floodplain or Basin
Plan Yes No No No Kittitas County Flood Control
Zone District
Stormwater Plan No No No No Eastern WA Stormwater
Management Plan
Capital Improvement
Plan No No No No
The 2011 Capital Facilities Plan,
is adopted as part of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan.
Habitat Conservation
Plan No No No No
Economic Development
Plan Yes No No No
The Economic Development
Plan is a part of the
Comprehensive Plan, and the
Economic Development
Strategic Plan prepared by the
Economic Development Group
of Kittitas County has been
adopted by reference into the
2016 Kittitas County
Comprehensive Plan.
Emergency Response
Plan Yes No No Yes
Kittitas County Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan,
2012
Shoreline Management
Plan Yes No No Yes Shoreline Master Program, 2016
Post Disaster Recovery
Plan No No No No
Table 2-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of
land development and land management
practices Yes
Kittitas County Public Works (PW): Director, County
Engineer, Planner.
Kittitas County Community Development Services
(CDS): Planner.
Engineers or professionals trained in
building or infrastructure construction
practices
Yes
PW: County Engineer, Construction Manager,
Director.
Planners or engineers with an
understanding of natural hazards Yes PW: Director, County Engineer, Planner.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes PW: Planner.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
7
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Floodplain manager Yes PW: Planner.
Surveyors Yes PW: Survey crew.
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS
applications
Yes
PW: Planners, Floodplain Managers, Engineering
Techs. CDS: Planners. Information Services: GIS
Analyst. Assessor: Cadastral Technician. Various
other county departments have employees with GIS
experience.
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in
local area Yes By contract: CWU, WSDOT, NOAA, WDFW.
Emergency manager Yes Sheriff’s Office: Emergency Management Operations
Commander, Kittitas County Search and Rescue
Grant writers Yes Numerous Kittitas County employees with grant
writing experience.
Table 2-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or
Developers
Eligible: Yes
Accessible: No
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
8
Table 2-6. Community Classifications
Program Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System Yes — —
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 4/4 —
Public Protection
Fire District #1 Yes 6 —
Fire District #2 Yes 8 —
Fire District #3 Yes 7 —
Fire District #4 Yes 8 —
Fire District #6 Yes 7 —
Fire District #7 Yes 8 —
Fire District #8 Yes 8 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise Yes High 2018
Table 2-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #KC-1—Maintain and readopt, as necessary, the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District.
New and Existing Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10
Public Works 10,000
Medium
General Fund,
Road Fund
Short-term
Initiative #KC-2—Enhance the flood warning system on major rivers and streams within Kittitas County
including strengthening the computer interface and upgrading and increasing the number of weather stations.
New and Existing Flood 1, 6, 9 Sheriff,
Public Works
100,000
Medium
Grants, Road
Fund, General
Fund, Other
agency funds
Short-term
Initiative #KC-3—Continue participation and improve rating in the Community Rating System.
New and Existing Flood All Public Works,
CDS
10,000
Low
General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #KC-4—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-
prone areas to protect them from future damage, with priority for properties exposed to repetitive losses.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
9
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 8, 10 Public Works,
CDS
5,000,000
High
HMGP Long-term
Initiative #KC-5—Adopt appropriate regulatory standards that will reduce the risk to natural hazards through
updates to existing code affecting critical areas regulations, flood hazard regulations, shoreline regulations, and
to the county’s growth management comprehensive plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 3, 4, 9,
10
Public Works,
CDS
25,000
Low
General Fund,
grants
Short-term
Initiative #KC-6—Annually disseminate a floodplain information brochure to all floodplain area or flood risk
households.
New and Existing Flood 1, 2, 6, 10 Public Works,
CDS
10,000/year General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #KC-7—Retrofit, rehabilitate or replace vulnerable road facilities, bridges and infrastructure
throughout Kittitas County.
Existing All except
drought and
severe weather
1, 8 Public Works High HMGP, Roads
Fund
Long-term
Initiative #KC-8—Replace undersized bridges and culverts throughout Kittitas County.
Existing Flood 1, 8 Public Works High HMGP, Roads
Fund
Long-term
Initiative #KC-9—Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance
Program.
New and Existing Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
8, 10
CDS, Public
Works
10,000 General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #KC-10—Update the Kittitas County Comprehensive Flood Management Plan.
New and Existing Flood All CDS, Public
Works
250,000
Medium
General Fund Short-term
Initiative #KC-11—Where feasible, seek to elevate at-risk structures within the floodplain to an adequate
freeboard that is commensurate with the flood risk. The measure of feasibility will be willing participation by
the property owner and the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Existing Flood 1, 8 Public Works 5,000,000
High
HMGP, Road
Fund
Short-term
Initiative # KC-12—Upgrade or install stream gauges on rivers and streams with a flow greater than 20 cubic
feet per second.
New and Existing Flood, Dam
Failure
1, 7 Public Works,
CDS
100,000
Medium
HMGP, grants Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # KC-13—Conduct a study of all County-owned facilities to determine their vulnerability to natural
hazards. Conduct a seismic retrofit or other mitigation to identified vulnerable structures.
Existing Earthquake 1, 8 Facilities Medium HMGP, General
Fund
Long-term
Initiative # KC-14—Begin a public outreach effort to educate landowners about Firewise and Fire Adapted
Communities programs, defensible space around structures, non-combustible building materials, fuel reduction
and other wildfire prevention tactics. Place information boards in key areas of the County.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
10
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 6 County Fire
Marshal
20,000
Low
HMGP, grants Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # KC-15—Perform fuel reduction projects in high wildfire risk areas and areas with identified need
throughout Kittitas County.
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 6,
10
County Fire
Marshal
$70,000
Low
HMGP, grants Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # KC-16—Enhance the subdivision code and building code to include updated fire code
requirements.
New Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 4,
10
County Fire
Marshal, CDS
Low General Fund Short-term
Initiative # KC-17—Continue to improve and preserve fire apparatus access throughout the County, including
access through private gates.
New and Existing Al Hazards 1, 2, 8 Fire Marshal,
Public Works
Medium HMGP, Road
Fund
Short-term,
Long-term,
Ongoing
Initiative # KC-18—Identify seiche hazard areas and adopt higher regulatory standards to protect structures
within the identified areas.
New Seiche 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,
10
Public Works,
CDS
Medium General Fund Long-term
Initiative # KC-19—Continue to adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of habitable structures in
high risk landslide and avalanche areas.
New Landslide &
Avalanche
1, 2, 3, 4,
10
CDS 25,000 General Fund Short-term
Initiative # KC-20—Strengthen/harden critical road facilities from the impacts of all hazards for which they
have exposure and vulnerability.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 8 Public Works High HMGP, Road
Fund
Long-Term
depends on
funding
Initiative # KC-21—Proactively manage hazardous tree removal from public areas, and educate private
property owners about management of their own trees.
Existing Severe Storm 1, 9, 10 Public Works,
CDS
Low General Fund,
Road Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # KC-22—Use the best available data and science to continually update the County risk assessment
as new information becomes available (hydrologic, geologic, topographic, etc.).
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 3, 7 Public Works,
CDS
HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Short-term
Initiative # KC-23—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into future updates of the Kittitas County
Comprehensive Plan.
New All Hazards All CDS 250,000 General Fund Short-term
Initiative # KC-24—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
11
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and Existing All Hazards All Public Works Low HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # KC-25—Integrate goals, objectives and initiatives of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
into existing County regulations and programs where appropriate.
New and Existing All Hazards All All County
regulatory
agencies
Low General Fund,
Road Fund
Short-term
Initiative #KC-26—Maintain an active public outreach strategy using available multiple media to inform the
public how to personally prepare for and mitigate the hazards of concern.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 6 Public Works,
CDS, Sheriff
Low General Fund Short-term
Ongoing
Initiative #KC-27—Support detailed ash fall studies.
New and Existing Volcano 1, 7, 9 Public Works,
CDS
Low HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Long-term
Initiative #KC-28—Identify and create new impounded water sources.
New and Existing Drought 1, 7 Public Works Medium HMGP, Grant,
Other
Long-term
Initiative #KC-29—Educate the public on drought resistance and encourage the use of water saving
landscaping, irrigation methods and farming practices.
New and Existing Drought 1, 6, 7, 9,
10
CDS, Kittitas
County
Conservation
District
Low General Fund,
Grants
Short-term
Initiative #KC-30—Improve irrigation conveyance systems to reduce water loss through earthen canals and
ditches.
New and Existing Drought 1, 8, 9, 10 CDS, Kittitas
County
Conservation
District
High HMGP,
Irrigation
Districts and
Companies
Long-term
Initiative #KC-31—Enhance the existing dam failure early warning system.
New and Existing Dam Failure 1, 6 CDS, Public
Works
Medium HMGP, Grants Long-term
Initiative #KC-32—Set the course for sustained operations of critical county functions by the development of
a continuity of operations plan and/or a post-disaster recovery plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 1,6,9 Emergency
Management
Medium General Fund,
DHS grant
funding
Long term
Initiative #KC-33—Continue to support through active participation the “county-wide” initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 5,6,9 All County
Agencies
Low General Fund Short-term
Ongoing
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
12
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #KC-34—Consider participation in the National Weather Service “Storm Ready” program.
New and Existing Flood, Severe
Weather
6,7,9 Emergency
Management
Low General
Funding, NWS
grant funding
Short-term
Table 2-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
KC-1 10 High Medium Yes No Yes High
KC-2 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-3 10 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-4 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-5 5 High Low Yes Now Yes High
KC-6 4 Low Low Yes No Yes High
KC-7 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-8 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-9 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-10 10 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-11 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-12 2 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-13 2 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-14 5 Low Low Yes No Yes High
KC-15 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
KC-16 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-17 5 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High
KC-18 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-19 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-20 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-21 5 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
KC-22 2 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High
KC-23 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-24 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
KC-25 10 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
KC-26 10 Low Low Yes No Yes High
KC-27 10 Low Low Yes No No Low
KC-28 2 Medium Medium Yes No No Medium
CHAPTER 2. UNINCORPORATED KITTITAS COUNTY ANNEX
13
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
KC-29 2 Low Low Yes No No Medium
KC-30 5 High High Yes Yes No Medium
KC-31 4 High Medium Yes No Yes High
KC-32 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KC-33 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
KC-34 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 2-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education
and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 5, 19, 23, 24, 25,
33
4, 7, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5 17, 20, 32
Dam failure 5, 23, 24, 25, 33 4, 7, 11, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5 12, 20, 31, 32
Drought 5, 23, 24, 25, 33 4 22, 24, 26, 29, 33 5 32 28, 30
Earthquake 5, 13, 23, 24, 25,
33
4, 7, 13, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5 17, 20, 32 13
Flood 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 23,
24, 25, 33
1,3,4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 20
1,3, 6, 9, 10, 22,
24, 26, 33
1,3, 5, 10 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12,
17, 20, 31, 32,34
1, 3, 10
Landslide 5, 19, 23, 24, 25,
33
4, 7, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5 17, 20, 32
Severe Weather 5, 23, 24, 25, 33 4, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5, 21 12, 17, 20, 32, 34
Seiche 5, 18, 23, 24, 25,
33
4, 7, 18, 20 18, 22, 24, 26, 33 5 17, 20, 32
Volcano 5, 23, 24, 25, 27,
33
4, 20 22, 24, 26, 33 5 17, 20, 32
Wildfire 5, 15, 16, 23, 24,
25, 33
4, 7, 15, 20 14, 22, 24, 26, 33 5, 15 17, 20, 32
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
1
Chapter 3.
City of Cle Elum Annex
3.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Edwin Mills, Fire Chief
301 Pennsylvania Ave
Cle Elum, WA. 98922
Telephone: 509-674-1748
Email: firechief@cityofcleelum.com
Lucy Temple, City Planner
119 W. 1st St.
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Telephone: 509-674-2262
Email: lucy@cityofcleelum.com
3.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
• Date of Incorporation - Cle Elum was officially incorporated on February 12, 1902.
• Current Population - 1,872 as of 2010 (US Census). The American Community Survey estimated
a population of 1,993 in 2017.
• Population Growth - The City of Cle Elum has had a growth rate of approximately 7.3
percent since 2000 according to City-Data.com.
• Location and Description - The City of Cle Elum is located in Upper Kittitas County at Milepost
83 on Interstate 90 east of Snoqualmie Pass (47°11'39"N 120°56'15"W). It is bordered on the north
by the Cle Elum Ridge and the south by South Cle Elum Ridge, including Peoh Point. It has a total
land area of 3.22 sq. mi. It is a neighbor town to the City of Roslyn. It is at an altitude of 1,913 feet.
The City of Cle Elum sits on the east slopes of the Central Cascade mountain range in the center of
Washington State. This area is historically significant for its rich natural resources, fish and wildlife
and cultural resources.
• Jurisdiction Vulnerability to Hazards— Cle Elum, along with all jurisdictions in Kittitas County,
has an overall low vulnerability to avalanche, drought, landslide, and volcano hazards, and an
overall high vulnerability to severe weather events. Based on the three dam failure scenarios used
in this plan, 62% of Cle Elum’s population and property is at risk of dam failure. Cle Elum has high
exposure to earthquakes, and various earthquake scenarios result in losses up to 8% of building
value. Cle Elum has 174 buildings (19% of assessed building value) located in the 100- or 500-
year floodplain, and therefore a high vulnerability to flood events. Cle Elum has moderate
vulnerability to wildfires, with 2% of buildings exposed to the 0-30 Year Fire Interval.
• Brief History - The founders of Cle Elum were Thomas L. Gamble (later known as Judge Gamble)
and Walter J. Reed. Mr. Gamble took up a quarter section of land in Section 26, Township 20
North, and Range 15 East, in April 1883 with the intent of farming the land. Mr. Reed took a claim
adjoining Mr. Gamble’s on the west. On those two preemptive claims the town was laid out. The
date of these filings was three years prior to the discovery of coal. Scattered discoveries of coal
ledges had been made in 1883 and 1884, but in 1886 a definite discovery of a large ledge of good
coal in paying quantities made it clear that an important stage had come in the history of the region
and populations in the region began to increase. Meanwhile, the Northern Pacific Railway was
seeking a route over the Cascade Mountains. On October 11, 1886, the first Northern Pacific
Railroad train pulled into the new Cle Elum station. Following the arrival of the railway, the small
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
2
town began to grow rapidly.
In 1913, steps were taken to improve automobile access across the Cascade Mountains via
Snoqualmie Pass. A $1,500,000 levy was approved in 1913 to improve and expand the state’s
highways. The majority of the levy ($590,743) went to construction of the Sunset Highway between
Spokane and Seattle. This major cross-state highway would pass directly through Cle Elum’s
business district. As one of the first towns reached after traveling east across the pass, Cle Elum
would benefit from the road’s construction. That same year, reflecting on the prosperity of the coal
mines, the city’s second bank was chartered. By 1914, Cle Elum’s population had risen to 3,000
from about 100 at the turn of the century.
Cle Elum’s greatest disaster occurred on June 25, 1918 when a fire wiped out over 70 acres of the
city (29 city blocks), with over $500,000 dollars in damage. The cause was determined to be a
discarded cigarette butt thrown into a pile of garbage behind a theater. Thirty businesses and 205
houses were destroyed, leaving more than 1,800 people homeless. Following the incident, aid
poured in from across the state. The Red Cross brought tents from Camp Lewis to house misplaced
citizens while soldiers were sent from Ellensburg to guard businesses. Yakima and Portland,
Oregon also sent aid to the city. Fortunately no lives were lost in the incident. High insurance rates
on Cle Elum’s many wooden structures inhibited many people from purchasing it. One of the few
buildings in downtown Cle Elum to survive the fire was the Cle Elum State Bank Building, built
in 1906 and still standing today. The rest of downtown was quickly rebuilt of brick and many of
these buildings still stand.
• Climate - Cle Elum gets 22 inches of rain per year. Snowfall is 81 inches. The number of days with
any measurable precipitation is 117. On average, there are 199 sunny days per year in Cle Elum.
The July high is around 81 degrees. The January low is 20. The city’s comfort index, which is based
on humidity during the hot months, is a 75 out of 100, where higher is more comfortable. The US
average on the comfort index is 44.
• Governing Body Format - The City of Cle Elum is governed by a mayor and a seven person
council.
• Development Trends - With its proximity to the Seattle metropolitan area and vast supply of
recreational land, Kittitas County has been called “Seattle’s backyard.” The majority of
development in the Cle Elum area has been for recreational or second homes. Historically, most of
the development has occurred in mountainous and forested areas, and many hillsides have been
cleared and roads constructed to provide access to these lands. The County has also seen a rise over
the past decade of families buying houses in the Cle Elum area and commuting daily to the Seattle
area.
3.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 3-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards in the county. Repetitive loss records are as follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 2
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
3.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 3-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
3.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 3-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 3-4. The
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
3
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table 3-6.
3.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 3-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 3-8 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 3-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
3.7. HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps for the City of Cle Elum are included at the end of this chapter. These
maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to
be adequate for planning purposes.
Table 3-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Flood Event (DR-1817) 1/30/2009 61,688
Earthquake 02-28-2001 N/A
Earthquake 05-03-1996 N/A
Earthquake 01-29-1995 N/A
Earthquake 02-14-1981 N/A
Earthquake 04-29-1965 N/A
Table 3-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Flood 27
2 Wildfire 27
3 Earthquake 24
4 Dam Failure 18
5 Severe Weather 18
6 Landslide 10
7 Volcano 6
8 Drought 5
9 Avalanche 1
10 Seiche 0
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
4
Table 3-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes No Yes Title 15 CEMC adopts the
2009 IBC, 7/27/2010
Zoning Code Yes No No No Title 17, CEMC, 2001
Subdivisions Yes No No No Title 16, CEMC, 2005
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No No
Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes RCW 64.06.020
Growth Management Yes No No Yes RCW 36.70A
Site Plan Review Yes No No Yes Title 15 CEMC, 2010
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical areas)
Yes No No No Flood damage Prevention:
Title 15, Chapter 15.24; 2002
Critical Areas: Title 18,
CEMC, 2010
Building Code Yes Yes No Yes Title 15 CEMC adopts the
2009 IBC, 7/27/2010
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes No No Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes No No No Kittitas County
Comprehensive Floodplain
Management Plan, 1996
Stormwater Plan Yes No No No
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No No 5-year CIP, updated annually
for streets, water, sewer and
drainage
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No No
Economic Development Plan Yes No No No Economic Development
Group of Kittitas County &
Chamber
Emergency Response Plan No No No No Upper County Emergency
Management Plan (working
with Perteet and other local
jurisdictions) in progress
Shoreline Management Plan Yes Yes No No
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No No
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
5
Table 3-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices Y Lucy Temple, City Planner
Ben Annen, City Engineer
Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices Y Robert Omans, CBO
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards Y Lucy Temple, City Planner
Ben Annen, City Engineer
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis N
Floodplain manager Y Lucy Temple, City Planner
Surveyors Y City Engineers, or contractor
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y Lucy Temple, City Planner
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area N
Emergency manager N
Grant writers Y Lucy Temple, City Planner
Table 3-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Y
Capital Improvements Project Funding Y
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Y
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds N
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas N
State Sponsored Grant Programs Y
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers N
Other N
Table 3-6. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No — —
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3/3 —
Public Protection Yes 6/9 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise Yes — 2009 (first)
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
6
Table 3-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #CE-1—Consider participation in the Community Rating System
New and Existing Flood All City Council Low General Fund Short-term
Initiative #CE-2—Adopt appropriate regulatory standards that will reduce the risk of natural hazards
through updates to existing code affecting critical areas regulations, flood hazard regulations, shoreline
regulations, and updates to the county’s comprehensive plan.
New All Hazards 1, 3, 4, 9, 10 Community
Development
Low General Fund Short-term
Initiative #CE-3—Provide Pre-Disaster Mitigation by repairing the left bank of the Yakima River
adjacent to Interstate 90 and Hanson Ponds. Acquire funding to complete design, permitting, and
construction of the repair.
Existing Flooding 1, 3, 10 Public Works Medium FEMA HMGP Immediate
Initiative #CE-4—Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood
Insurance Program.
New and Existing Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
8, 10
Community
Development
Low General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #CE-5—Consider participation in the National Weather Service “Storm Ready” program.
New and Existing Flood, Severe
Weather
6, 7, 9 Public Works Low General Fund Short term
Initiative #CE-6—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-
prone areas to protect structures from future damage, with properties with exposure to repetitive losses as
a priority.
Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 8, 10 Community
Development
High HMGP
Funding, Local
Contribution
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #CE-7—Continue to support participation in the “Firewise” program by expanding the number
of project sites within Cle Elum and promoting Firewise strategies through active community outreach.
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 Community
Development
Low General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #CE-8—Set the course for sustained operations of critical city functions by the development of
a continuity of operations plan and/or a post-disaster recovery plan.
New and existing All Hazards 1, 6, 9 Emergency
Management
Staff
Medium General Fund,
DHS Grant
Funding
Long-term
Initiative #CE-9—Educate the public on natural hazards, the risks they pose and way to reduce those risk
through existing public information programs with the City.
New and Existing All Hazards 6, 7, 9 City Council Low General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative # CE-10—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
7
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and Existing All Hazards All City Council,
Fire Chief
Low HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #CE-11—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 5, 6, 9 All City
Agencies
Low General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #CE-12—Implement fuels reduction strategies and maintain vegetation to reduce wildfire intensity
in the Wildland Urban Interface across all property ownerships.
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 3, 4, 8, 10 All City
Departments
Medium General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #CE-13—Provide emergency power for all city facilities and utilities.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 10 All City
Departments
High HMGP Grant
Funds
Short-term
Initiative #CE-14—Protect backup water source by relocating the Cle Elum River backup wellfield controls to
higher ground.
Existing Flood, Dam
Failure
1, 8 Public Works High HMGP Grant
Funds
Short-term
Initiative #CE-15— Implement alternative methods and strategies to provide sustainable vegetation and debris
removal in the Wildland Urban Interface by incorporating equipment to better dispose and reuse material i.e.,
Tub Grinders. Sustainable processing of vegetation and organic matter can ultimately lead to new opportunities
for biomass energy utilization and material needed for restoration.
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 7, 10 Public Works Medium HMA Funds,
General Funds
Ongoing, Short-
term
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
8
Table 3-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
CE-1 10 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
CE-2 5 High Low Yes No Yes High
CE-3 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High
CE-4 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
CE-5 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
CE-6 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium
CE-7 5 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
CE-8 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
CE-9 3 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
CE-10 10 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
CE-11 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
CE-12 5 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
CE-13 2 High High Yes Yes No High
CE-14 2 High High Yes Yes No High
CE-15 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
9
Table 3-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 2, 10 6 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Dam failure 2, 10 6, 14 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Drought 2, 10 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Earthquake 2, 10 6 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Flood 1, 2, 4, 10 1, 4, 6, 14 1, 4, 9, 11 1, 3, 4 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 1, 3
Landslide 2, 10 6 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Severe Weather 2, 10 6 9, 11 5, 8, 13, 14
Seiche 2, 10 6 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Volcano 2, 10 6 9, 11 8, 13, 14
Wildfire 2, 7, 10, 12 6, 7, 12, 15 7, 9, 11 7, 15 8, 13, 14
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
10
Figure 3-1. Cle Elum Critical Facilities
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
11
Figure 3-2. Cle Elum Minimum Temperatures
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
12
Figure 3-3. Cle Elum Maximum Temperature
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
13
Figure 3-4. Cle Elum Average Annual Precipitation
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
14
Figure 3-5. Cle Elum Potential Wind Power
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
15
Figure 3-6. Cle Elum Dam Inundation Area for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
16
Figure 3-7. Easton Dam Inundation Area for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
17
Figure 3-8. Keechelus and Kachees Dam Inundation Area for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
18
Figure 3-9. Cle Elum Special Flood Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
19
Figure 3-10. Cle Elum Liquefaction Susceptibility
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
20
Figure 3-11. NEHRP Seismic Soil Site Classes for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
21
Figure 3-12. Cle Elum Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
22
Figure 3-13. Horse Heaven Hills Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
23
Figure 3-14. Mill Creek Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
24
Figure 3-15. Rattlesnake Wallula Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Cle Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
25
Figure 3-16. Saddle Mountain Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Cle
Elum
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
26
Figure 3-17. Cle Elum Wildland Fire Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 3. CITY OF CLE ELUM ANNEX
27
Figure 3-18. Cle Elum Mean Fire Return Interval
1
Chapter 4.
City of Ellensburg Annex
4.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Kirsten Sackett, Community Development Director
501 N. Anderson
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-962-7232
Email: sackettk@ci.ellensburg.wa.us
Ryan Lyyski, Public Works & Utilities Director
501 N. Anderson
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-962-7230
Email: lyyskir@ci.ellensburg.wa.us
4.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
– Date of Incorporation —1883
– Current Population — 18,174 as of 2010 Census. The American Community Survey
estimated a population of 18,957 in 2016.
– Population Growth — The population growth rate for the City of Ellensburg has remained
low but consistent throughout the past few decades, with clear correlation to changes in
student population at Central Washington University (CWU). The highest percent increase
occurred between the 1990 and 2000 Census, at 19.8%. The decade between the 2000 and
the 2010 Census, saw the City population increase by 2,760, an 18 percent increase and an
average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. During the seven years after the 2010 census, the
City population increased by 2,152, a 10.3 percent increase and an average annual growth rate
of 1.47%.
– Location and Description — The City of Ellensburg is in central Kittitas County at the
intersection of Interstate 90, Interstate 82, and US Highway 97 and is near the center of
Washington State. The elevation is approximately 1,500 feet with topography sloping gradually
from northeast to southwest and the Yakima River. The City is located in a fertile plateau valley
adjacent to the Yakima River, with ridges and mountains associated with the Cascade mountain
range surrounding it. The surrounding area is primarily composed of irrigated agricultural land
or semi-arid desert lands that are not irrigated. Six perennial creeks that convey runoff and
snow melt water from the mountain range watersheds to the north run through the developed
City from the northeast to the southwest where they flow into the Yakima River which t hen
flows into the Columbia River some 130 miles to the south. In addition, three large irrigation
canals traverse the City from the northwest to the southeast and provide irrigation water to the
surrounding agricultural lands.
Interstate 90, Interstate 82 and US Highway 97, which all intersect at Ellensburg, provide direct
access to the Puget Sound area in the west, Canada to the north, and the greater US to the south
and east. BNSF Railway has a main line that runs through the City.
Central Washington University is located in Ellensburg and as of 2018 has a student population
of approximately 11,500, in addition to the associated staff.
The City has two national historic districts—the Downtown National Historic District and the
First Railroad Historic District—which consist of commercial and residential structures from
the late 1800s and help make the City a regional historic preservation destination.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
2
– Jurisdiction Vulnerability to Hazards— Ellensburg, along with all jurisdictions in Kittitas
County, has an overall low vulnerability to avalanche, drought, landslide, and volcano hazards,
and an overall high vulnerability to severe weather events. Based on the three dam failure
scenarios used in this plan, 8% of Ellensburg’s population and 5% of property is at risk of dam
failure. Ellensburg has high exposure to earthquakes, and various earthquake scenarios result
in losses up to 3% of building value. Ellensburg has 791 buildings (17% of assessed building
value) located in the 100- or 500-year floodplain, and therefore a high vulnerability to flood
events. Ellensburg has moderate vulnerability to wildfires, with 5% of buildings exposed to the
0-30 Year Fire Interval.
– Brief History—Ellensburg is located on the western slopes of the Columbia Plateau, site of
some dramatic geological events that have occurred over time. Basaltic lava flows took place
some 15 million years ago, with a series of giant glacial flood events after the ice age. The
largest documented flood in geologic history occurred when a very large water body in the
Montana region suddenly breached, causing huge volumes of water to rapidly sweep across the
basaltic plateau as it made its way westward to sea level at the Pacific Ocean. More recently,
in 1980 Mt. St. Helens, one of a string of active volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range,
erupted and caused significant property damage and loss of life in the immediate vicinity of the
mountain; Ellensburg was impacted with significant ash from that eruption, causing property
damage, health issues, and general disruption to the normal activities of the community. Those
events have shaped the landscape of central and eastern Washington where Ellensburg is
located.
The first inhabitants of the Ellensburg area were the Psch-wan-wap-pams (stony ground
people) also known as the Kittitas band of the Yakama or Upper Yakama Tribe. The Ellensburg
area was one of the few areas in Washington where both camas and kouse (a root used make
to bread) grew, which made it an important gathering place for regional tribes. Eventually fur
trading and missionary activity entered the valley in the 1860s and by the end of that decade a
trading post known as “Robber’s Roost” was established.
The late 1800s saw the community prosper as the Northern Pacific Railroad established a rail
siding facility in Ellensburg in 1886 that helped create markets for cattle, dairy products,
timber, wool and hay. There was speculation that as part of the region’s effort to petition
Congress to admit Washington into the union in 1889, Ellensburg would be named the new
state capitol due to its central location. A disastrous fire on July 4, 1889, fanned by the winds
that regularly flow down from the Cascade Mountain Range to the west, ended that speculation
and destroyed most of the downtown business district and many homes. The community rebuilt
itself, using brick and stone masonry rather than wood, within a year.
Although Ellensburg lost the state capitol decision to Olympia, the new State Legislature
established the Washington State Normal School (a teacher’s college now known as Central
Washington University) in Ellensburg. The school opened in 1891 with 86 students and today
CWU has an enrollment exceeding 11,000 students, occupies approximately 380 acres, is the
county’s largest employer with more than 1,300 employees, and is estimated to contribute some
$190 million annually to the local economy.
The timing of the fire and the rapid reconstruction of the destroyed downtown produced a
unified and attractive appearance dominated by late Victorian architectural styles that have
subsequently been filled in with a few early twentieth-century neoclassic and art deco-styled
buildings. That historical style has defined the community and continues to serve as one of its
biggest assets. Ellensburg has grown from its re-birth and has established itself as a vital,
rooted, and unique community in which the residents consider it as being a quiet, clean,
comfortable, safe, and family-oriented city.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
3
– Climate—Ellensburg has strong summers and winters. Temperatures vary considerably within
the seasons. There are four distinct seasons and a strong and regular breeze from the west
throughout much of the year. Average mean temperatures range in the high 50s F with
summertime temperatures averaging near 80° F and winter lows often getting below freezing.
The mountains to the west and north effectively block much of the rain from the “wet” side of
the state, producing a dry climate with less than 10 inches of rain a year. The combination of
large snow pack in the mountains, strong westerly winds and occasional unseasonal warm rain
events, however, results in regular flood events from February through May for the streams
that run from the mountains through the city to the Yakima River.
– Governing Body Format—The City of Ellensburg utilizes the council-manager form of
government with a city manager hired by the city council. The city council elects a mayor and
mayor pro tem from the council to serve two-year terms. The City also uses an appointed
planning commission to provide land use policy recommendations to City Council and to hear
conditional use permit applications. The City also retains the services of a Hearing Examiner
to hear quasi-judicial land use permit application matters and provide recommendations to City
Council. A number of citizen boards and commissions have been established to provide
recommendation and guidance to council on a variety of issues, including the downtown, the
environment, energy, historic preservation, parks and recreation, library, arts and affordable
housing.
– Development Trends—Beginning in the late 1990s and continuing up to the economic
downturn in the late 2000s, the City experienced greater than usual growth, primarily in
residential structures, although the population growth did not ma tch that rate of residential
growth. That is primarily due to the housing boom in the early to mid-2000s and the reality that
Ellensburg is a college town and it became easier for some families to purchase a second,
speculative residence in which to house their child while attending CWU and to utilize the rent
payment from roommates to pay the mortgage. The economic downturn of the late 2000s,
stifled the growth spurt for a period of time, but Ellensburg is again seeing slow and steady
growth.
4.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 4-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards in the county. A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any
insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. Repetitive loss records in the
City of Ellensburg are as follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 0
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
4.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 4-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
4.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 4-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 4-4. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 4-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table 4-6.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
4
4.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 4-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 4-8 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 4-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
4.7. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
The biggest future need to better understand risk/vulnerability would be a re-mapping of the floodplain by
FEMA. Ellensburg annually experiences sheet-flow floods, and the floods are not uniformly in flood
locations identified on the 1981 FIRM maps. People suffer property damage but are not within a FIRM
floodplain and are not eligible for federal flood insurance. People want to develop their properties that are
not identified in the floodplain but that consistently flood, and it becomes a regulatory issue for which there
is no solid documented basis to regulate the property for flooding. FEMA is in the process of digitizing the
existing 1981 FIRMs, and is currently working with Kittitas County to remap tributaries that run through
the City using LiDAR technology.
4.8. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Due to its climate and topography, Ellensburg is prone to unpredictable flood events when there is
significant snow pack in the foothills surrounding the City during early and late winter and a heavy rain
event occurs combined with warm temperatures and strong winds (strong winds are the norm for this area).
The creek that experiences the flood event varies and is dependent on the temperature and the degree of
compactness of the snowpack within the creek watersheds. The result is significant overbank flow in the
six creeks that run northeast to southwest through the developed city toward the Yakima River, which
becomes sheet-flow flooding over large areas of the community. This regular pattern of flooding does not
pose major risks to life, but it does cause significant annual damage to public and private property. Although
the City’s risk rating for the flood hazard is 36 the regularity of annual flooding and associated property
damage makes this hazard risk much higher. The City of Ellensburg already incorporates green
infrastructure into its stormwater development standards, which are approved by the Department of Ecology
to minimize flood impacts and improve water quality.
In addition, because most of the City’s historic downtown structures are masonry buildings constructed in
the late 1880s, they are not likely to perform well in earthquake events. The 2001 Nisqually Earthquake,
while causing significant damage to the Puget Sound region, in particular the older historic structures, did
not cause significant damage in Ellensburg. However, a more local earthquake event, or a much stronger
event in the Puget Sound region would likely cause significant property loss and the potential for significant
personal injury in the historic downtown area if the two-story brick buildings were to collapse. Retrofitting
those historic structures would be an expensive task that is beyond the City’s ability to address and beyond
the individual property owner’s ability to finance.
Large earthquake events in the Puget Sound region also will likely result in significant logistical problems
for the Ellensburg community. I-90 is the major east/west interstate that connects the more rural eastern
Washington to the more populated western Washington. Large-scale earthquake damage in the Puget Sound
region will likely cause serious disruption to food service delivery from the regional warehouses located in
Puget Sound, as well as damage to telecommunications. And if the event is serious enough there is likely
to be an exodus of displaced Puget Sound residents seeking shelter elsewhere and if the interstate is open
Ellensburg is the first larger city over the mountain passes from Puget Sound and is likely to be impacted
by displaced Puget Sound people seeking a safe place.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
5
4.9. HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps for the City of Ellensburg are included at the end of this chapter.
These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered
to be adequate for planning purposes.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
6
Table 4-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Severe Flooding 05/24/17 N/A
Severe Flooding 03/12/17 N/A
Severe Flooding 02/18/16 N/A
Severe Flooding 02/22/12 N/A
Severe Flooding 5/15/11 N/A
Severe Flooding 03/31/11 N/A
Severe Flooding 3/25/11 N/A
Severe Flooding 01/17/11 N/A
Severe Flooding 01/30/09 N/A
Severe Flooding 01/07/09 N/A
Earthquake (Nisqually) 03/01/01 N/A
Severe Winter Storm 01/17/97 N/A
Severe Winter Storm/Flooding 02/09/96 N/A
Storms/High Winds/Floods 01/03/96 N/A
Flooding, Severe Storm 11/26/90 N/A
Severe Flooding 8/21/90 N/A
Severe Winter Weather 01/18/86 N/A
Severe Storm 12/24/80 N/A
Volcanic Eruption, Mt. St. Helens 05/21/80 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 12/10/77 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 12/13/75 N/A
Heavy Rains & Flooding 12/29/64 N/A
Table 4-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Earthquake 36
2 Flood 36
3 Severe Weather 36
4 Dam Failure 30
5 Volcano 24
6 Landslide 6
7 Drought 3
8 Wildfire 3
9 Avalanche 0
10 Seiche 0
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
7
Table 4-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Y N N Y 2015 International Building
Codes
Zoning Code Y N N Y Title 15 ECC
Subdivisions Y N N N Title 15 ECC
Post Disaster Recovery Y N N Y Stormwater Utility Adopted
Real Estate Disclosure N N N N
Growth Management Y N N N Comprehensive Plan, SEPA and
Critical Areas
Site Plan Review Y N N N GMA compliant 2013 ECC
Update
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical areas) Y N N N
Site plans are reviewed for
compliance with codes and
development regulations
Building Code Y N N Y 2015 International Building
Codes
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive
Plan Y N N Y
Floodplain or Basin Plan Y Y N Y GMA compliant with 2017
Update
Stormwater Plan N N N N
Capital Improvement Plan
Y Y N Y
Adopted stormwater utility in
2009 and adopted the Eastern
Washington Stormwater
Development Guidance Manual
2004, updated 2018 and the
current stormwater development
standards with the City of
Ellensburg
Habitat Conservation Plan
Y N N N
Specific 6-Year and more general
12 and 18-year plans included in
Comp Plan
Economic Development
Plan N N N Y Regulated through Critical Area
Ordinance in ECCDivision VI
Emergency Response Plan
Y N N N
An element in the City Comp
Plan, in conjunction with
Ellensburg Business
Development Authority Strategic
Plan
Shoreline Management
Plan Y N N N Contracted for through Fire
District
Post Disaster Recovery
Plan N N N Y
Adopted by reference the Kittitas
County SMP. City SMP adopted
2016
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
8
Table 4-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices Y Community Development – Planners
Public Works and Energy Services-Engineers
Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices Y Building Department – Building Inspectors
Public Works and Energy Services-Engineers
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards Y Public Works – Flood Hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Y Various departments with basic capability
Floodplain manager Y Community Development Director
Surveyors Y Hire as needed
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y IT Department – GIS division
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Y Hire as needed
Emergency manager Y Contracted with Fire District
Grant writers Y On-call contract grant writers
Table 4-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Y
Capital Improvements Project Funding Y
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Y
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds N
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas N
State Sponsored Grant Programs Y
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Y
Other
Table 4-6. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No — —
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 4/4 —
Public Protection Yes 4/9 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
9
Table 4-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative E-1—West Ellensburg Flood Mitigation Project – Reecer and Currier Creeks from I-90 to University
Way, Alliance Short Plat/CenterPoint Business Park Acquisition to Create Floodplain and Extend Levee
Existing/New Flooding 1, 3, 6, 7, 9,
10
City $7,000,000,
High
Grants Included in 6-
Year Capital
Facility Plan
Initiative E-2—Wilson Creek Flood Control Project
Existing/New Flooding 1, 3, 6, 7, 9,
10
City $8,900,000,
High
General Fund,
Bonds, Grants
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative E-3—Update FEMA Floodplain Maps
Existing/New Flooding 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 10
City High General Fund,
FEMA RiskMAP
program, Grants
Long Term,
depends on
funding
Initiative E-4—Clear storm drains and culverts for stormwater management
Existing Flooding 1, 6, 7, 10 City High Stormwater
Utility Funds
Seasonally
Clean ½ the
City every 2
Years
Initiative E-5—Enhance existing stormwater facilities that lack capacity or functionality and construct new
local stormwater facilities where there is identified need.
Existing/New
Flooding 1, 6, 7, 10 City High Stormwater
Utility, Grants
Ongoing
Initiative E-6—Control land use in flood-prone areas (by zoning setbacks, greenways, and buffers)
New Flooding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 10
City Low HMGP Long Term
Initiative E-7—Acquisition of flood-prone structures and conversion of land to open space
Existing/New Flooding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 10
City High Grants Ongoing,
depends on
funding
Initiative E-8—Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Existing/New Flooding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
City low General fund Ongoing
Initiative E-9—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-prone
areas to protect structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties as
priority.
Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 8, 10 City high HMGP Long Term
Initiative E-10—Conduct a seismic retrofit of the Ellensburg Public Safety Building that houses the Ellensburg
Police Department and Kittitas Valley Fire And Rescue (Fire District) Headquarters.
Existing Earthquake 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10
City medium HMGP, General
Funds, Bonds
Long Term
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
10
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative E-11—Collect improved data (hydrologic, geologic, topographic, etc.) to assess risks and
vulnerabilities.
Existing/New All Hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
City medium Grants, General
fund
Ongoing
Initiative E-12—Consider adoption of appropriate regulatory standards, through updates as needed and/or
required, affecting critical areas regulations, flood hazard regulations, shoreline regulations, and to the city’s
growth management comprehensive plan.
New Flooding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 10
City medium General fund Ongoing
Initiative E-13—Inform and educate the public on hazard mitigation and preparedness via the city’s website.
Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 City low General fund Ongoing
Initiative E-14 —-Replace inadequately sized culvert for Reecer Creek at University Way.
Existing
Flooding 1, 2, 7, 8, 9,
10
City high Grants, Road
Fund, CIP
Long Term
Initiative E-15—Relocate City-owned critical facilities out of identified high hazard risk zones
Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10
City Unknown HMGP, Bond Long Term
Initiative E-16—Install stream gauge stations with communication links for early flood warning on all local
tributaries
Existing/New Flooding 1, 7, 9 City $160,000 Stormwater
Utility, Grants,
Kittitas County
Flood District
Short-term
Initiative E-17—Consider participation in the Community Rating System
New and existing Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
City low General fund Short-term
Initiative E-18—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this plan.
New and Existing All Hazards All City Council,
Community
Development
Low HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative E-19—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 5,6,9 All City
Agencies
Low General Fund Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative E-20—Consider participation in the National Weather Service “Storm Ready” program.
New and Existing Flood, Severe
Weather
6, 7, 9 Public Works Low General Fund Short-term
Initiative E-21— Gateway Project: $4 million dollar project to treat (infiltrate) 2 miles of stormwater on
University Way. Funded by Ecology, slated for 2019-2021.
New Flooding 1, 6, 7, 10 City High Stormwater
Utility, Grants
Funded
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
11
Table 4-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
E-1 6 High High Y Y Y High
E-2 6 High High Y Y N High
E-3 8 High High Y Y N High
E-4 4 High High Y N Y High
E-5 4 High High Y Y Y High
E-6 9 High Medium Y Y N High
E-7 9 High High Y Y Y High
E-8 10 High Low Y N Y High
E-9 4 Medium High N Y N Low
E-10 8 Medium High N Y N High
E-11 10 High High Y Y N High
E-12 9 Medium Medium Y N N Medium
E-13 5 Medium Low Y N Y Medium
E-14 6 High High Y Y N High
E-15 7 Medium High N Y N Medium
E-16 3 High Low Y Y Y High
E-17 10 Medium Low Y N Y Medium
E-18 10 High Low Y Y Y High
E-19 3 Medium Low Y N Y High
E-20 3 High Low Y Y Y High
E-21 4 High High Y Y Y High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
12
Table 4-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 18 18, 19 19
Dam Failure 18 6, 9, 11, 12, 13,
15
13, 18, 19 19 9, 15
Drought 18 18, 19 19
Earthquake 18 9, 10, 11, 15 13, 18 10, 19 9, 10, 15
Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17
6, 8, 12, 13, 16,
17, 18, 19
3, 11, 12, 17 17, 19, 20 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9,
14, 15, 16, 17,
21
Landslide 18 18, 19 19
Severe Weather 18 1, 2 13, 18, 19 1, 2 19, 20 1, 2
Seiche 18 18, 19 19
Volcano 18 13, 18, 19 19
Wildfire 18 18, 19 19
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
13
Figure 4-1. Ellensburg Critical Facilities
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
14
Figure 4-2. Ellensburg Minimum Temperatures
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
15
Figure 4-3. Ellensburg Maximum Temperatures
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
16
Figure 4-4. Ellensburg Average Annual Precipitation
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
17
Figure 4-5. Ellensburg Potential Wind Power
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
18
Figure 4-6. Cle Elum Dam Inundation Area for the City of Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
19
Figure 4-7. Keechelus & Kachees Dam Inundation Area for the City of Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
20
Figure 4-8. Ellensburg Special Flood Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
21
Figure 4-9. Ellensburg Landslide Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
22
Figure 4-10. Ellensburg Liquefaction Susceptibility
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
23
Figure 4-11. NEHRP Seismic Soil Classes for the City of Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
24
Figure 4-12. Cle Elum Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
25
Figure 4-13. Horse Heaven Hills Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
26
Figure 4-14. Mill Creek Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
27
Figure 4-15. Rattlesnake Wallula Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
28
Figure 4-16. Saddle Mountain Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Ellensburg
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
29
Figure 4-17. Ellensburg Wildland Fire Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 4. CITY OF ELLENSBURG ANNEX
30
Figure 4-18. Ellensburg Mean Fire Return Interval
1
Chapter 5.
City of Roslyn Annex
5.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Michelle Geiger, Planning and Building Official
PO Box 451
Roslyn, WA 98941
Telephone: 509-304-8337
Email: planner@ci.roslyn.wa.us
Myke Woodwell, Public Works Director
PO Box 451
Roslyn, WA 98941
Telephone: 509-649-3105
Email: publicworks@ci.roslyn.wa.us
5.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
– Date of Incorporation - 1886
– Current Population—893
– Population Growth - While Roslyn has experienced a 12.4 percent decrease in population
from 2000 to 2011, the surrounding communities and county have seen a net increase in
population.
– Location and Description - Roslyn is nestled in the foothills of the east-central Cascades in
predominantly Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest. The City is a gateway to the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness Area and Lake Cle Elum. To the north of Roslyn there is a 300+ acre urban forest
that is abutted by 20-acre parcels and Plum Creek Timber holdings to the top of the Cle Elum
Ridge. To the west is the township of Ronald, to the east Cle Elum, and south is the Master
Planned Resort of Suncadia. SR 903 runs through Roslyn from the southeast to the northwest.
Exit 80 (just east of Snoqualmie Pass) is the turn off for Roslyn from Interstate 90, which runs
from Seattle to Spokane (and beyond).
– Jurisdiction Vulnerability to Hazards - Roslyn, along with all jurisdictions in Kittitas
County, has an overall low vulnerability to avalanche, drought, landslide, and volcano hazards,
and an overall high vulnerability to severe weather events. Unlike other jurisdictions, none of
Roslyn’s population or property is at risk of dam failure. Roslyn has high exposure to
earthquakes, and various earthquake scenarios result in losses up to 1% of building value.
Roslyn has 16 buildings (3% of assessed building value) located in the 100 - or 500-year
floodplain, and therefore a moderate vulnerability to flood events. Roslyn has moderate
vulnerability to wildfires, with 9% of buildings exposed to the 0-30 Year Fire Interval.
– Brief History - Incorporated in 1886, the coal-mining town of Roslyn played an important role
in Washington State history. Extensive coal fields in the area fueled the Northern Pacific
Railroad’s trains during construction and early operation of a direct rail line through the
Cascade Mountains.
Men from coal mining regions in the United States, Europe and elsewhere came to work in the
mines. English, Italian and Slavic immigrants were among the early settlers and a significant
proportion of the town’s early residents were foreign born. In 1888, responding to a strike, the
Northern Pacific Coal Company recruited more than 300 African-American miners from
Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky and brought them, with their families, to work in the
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
2
mines. At one time, 24 ethnic groups and nationalities were living in Roslyn. Today, many of
the original families continue to make Roslyn their home.
– Climate - The climate of Roslyn is a mountainous climate that can be quite variable. Summers
are generally warm and sunny; the months of July, August and September are usually
characteristic of this season. The average temperatures in the high 70s to the mid-80s with a
highest recorded temperature of 105ºF in 1967. There is little to no rainfall during these months,
and the danger of wildfire is extremely high. Winter is typically at its peak from November
through February and typically has temperatures ranging from the mid-teens to mid-30; the
lowest recorded temperature was –33ºF in 1950. Most of the precipitation falls during these
months in the form of snow with heavy accumulations. Average snowfall for the City of Roslyn
is 78.5 inches per year. This is also the period when Roslyn experiences flooding events, when
there is a rain-on-snow event. This occurs when warm moist air from the Pacific is channeled
into the area, often leading to extended periods of rain.
– Governing Body Format - Roslyn is governed by an elected mayor/council form of
government with seven council seats. The City is run through the administrative office. Current
departments include Administrative/Finance, Planning, Public Works, and Volunteer Fire
Department. The Police Department is a part of a regional partnership between Roslyn, Cle
Elum, and the Town of South Cle Elum.
The City operates a water system managed through the Public Works Department. The City
provides water to the City of Roslyn, Kittitas Water District #2 (Ronald), the Roslyn/Cle Elum
School District, and other homes and businesses south of the City. The water source is Domerie
Creek, located approximately 5-½ miles from Roslyn on the east side of the Cle Elum River.
Water is gravity fed from the source to a slow sand filtration treatment plant located outside of
Ronald, where it continues to a 1 million gallon reservoir above the Roslyn historic cemeteries.
Sanitary services are provided by the City of Roslyn in its transmission facilities and a Regional
Wastewater Treatment plant located in and owned by the City of Cle Elum. The Kittitas Water
District #2 (Ronald) is connected to the transmission system at Runje Field. Sewage flows via
gravity toward Roslyn’s old sewage lagoons where flow data is captured as it continues towards
Cle Elum. One 5-acre lagoon is maintained as a stormwater attenuation facility during times of
heavy rain and flood events.
Fire service is provided by the Roslyn Fire Department, which has a 100-percent volunteer
staff and one fire station.
– Development Trends - There are significant impacts due to increase development pressures
outside of the city limits. Little to no regulation of grade and fill through the county and
increased impervious surfaces have created increased stormwater runoff that causes the City’s
stormwater system to flood on a regular basis. The City of Roslyn is currently working with
engineers to complete a stormwater study and create a stormwater utility to help and protect
public and private property from such incidences.
5.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 5-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards in the county. Repetitive loss records are as follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 0
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
5.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 5-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
3
5.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 5-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 5-4. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 5-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table 5-6.
5.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 5-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 5-8 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 5-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
5.7. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
The City of Roslyn is in need of an updated detailed flood study. The July 2014 City of Roslyn Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan revealed the City’s stormwater system is undersized. Several areas in the City are
classified as being in a flood hazard area, when they are in reality outside it, and several areas are classified
as outside the flood hazard area, but have recently flooded. Additionally, recent infrastructure projects have
potentially altered stormwater flow and the floodplain, and new development is stressing the already
undersized stormwater system.
5.8. HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps for the City of Roslyn are included at the end of this chapter. These
maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to
be adequate for planning purposes.
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
4
Table 5-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Wildfire 8/11/2017 N/A
Flooding 3/31/2011 N/A
Flooding 1/17/2011 N/A
Flooding 1/9/2009 $51,446.96
Winter Weather 12/2008 $5,113.04
Winter Weather 12/15/2006 $150,000a
Drought 5/2005 N/A
Winter Weather 1/17/2005 $333a
Drought 5/2004 N/A
Drought 7/2001 N/A
Earthquake 2/28/2001 N/A
Winter Weather 1/14/1998 N/A
Winter Weather/Flooding 12/27/1996 N/A
Winter Weather 1/6/1996 $5,333a
Flooding 02/1995 N/A
Flooding 11/1995 N/A
Winter Weather 2/18/1993 $2,381a
Winter Weather 12/8/1992 $714a
Winter Weather 12/29/1990 $1,282a
Flooding 11/25/1990 N/A
Winter Weather 2/1/1989 $128,205a
Winter Weather 12/2/1985 N/A
Winter Weather 1/2/1974 $5,000a
Winter Weather 1/24/1972 $25,642a
Winter Weather 12/30/1968 N/A
Table 5-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Flood 54
2 Wildfire 54
3 Severe Weather 51
4 Earthquake 30
5 Drought 18
6 Volcano 16
7 Landslide 6
8 Dam Failure 1
9 Avalanche 0
10 Seiche 0
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
5
Table 5-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Y N N Y RMC, IBC/IRC 2015
Zoning Code Y N N Y Title 18 RMC, WA GMA
2007
Subdivisions Y N N Y Title 17 & 18 RMC
Post Disaster Recovery
Y N Y Y
Eastern Washington
Stormwater Management
Plan
Real Estate Disclosure N N Y Y RCW 64.06.020
Growth Management Y N N Y RCW 36.70A
Site Plan Review Y N Y Y WA GMA 2007
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical areas) Y N N N Title 18 RMC
Planning Documents
General Plan Y N N Y City of Roslyn, Washington
Updated Comprehensive
Plan 2008
Floodplain or Basin Plan Y N Y Y RMC Title 15.15
Stormwater Plan Y N N Y Eastern Washington
Stormwater Management
Plan; City of Roslyn
Stormwater Comprehensive
Plan
Capital Improvement Plan Y N N Y City of Roslyn Capital
Improvement Plan, City of
Roslyn Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan Y N Y Y Roslyn Urban Forest Land
Stewardship Plan
Economic Development Plan Y N N Y City of Roslyn, Washington
Updated Comprehensive
Plan
Emergency Response Plan N N N N Upper Kittitas County
Emergency Response Plan in
development
Shoreline Management Plan N N N Y
Post Disaster Recovery Plan N N N N
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
6
Table 5-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices Y Planning Dept./City of Roslyn/Planner,
Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices Y Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards Y Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Y
Floodplain manager Y City of Roslyn Planner
Surveyors Y Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Y Perteet, Inc. (Engineer)
Emergency manager N
Grant writers Y Staff and Contracted
Table 5-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Y
Capital Improvements Project Funding Y
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Y
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds N
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Can, but don’t
State Sponsored Grant Programs Y
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Y
Other N
Table 5-6. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No — —
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3/3 —
Public Protection Yes 6/9 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise Yes Mod/High 2001/2011
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
7
Table 5-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #R-1—Utilize and enhance existing programs to raise public awareness about natural hazards, the risk
they pose and ways to reduce those risks.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
9
City Low General Fund Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-2—Maintain political support for hazard mitigation and response planning and programs by
annually monitoring the progress of initiatives identified in this plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 City Low General Fund Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-3—Leverage mitigation opportunities by establishing and maintaining partnerships between public
and private sectors
Existing All Hazards 1, 5, 9 City Low General Fund Ongoing
Initiative #R-4— Develop a continuity of operations plan and/or a post-disaster recovery plan to sustain
operation of critical Town functions.
New and existing All Hazards 1, 6, 9 City Medium General Fund,
DHS grant
funding
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative # R-5—Replace vulnerable bridge crossings with restrained piping where feasible and cost-effective.
Existing Flood, Dam
Failure,
Earthquake
1, 7 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-6—Replace main transmission waterline (to bridge)
Existing Earthquake 1, 7 City $2,000,000,
High
Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Short-term
Initiative #R-7—Replace main transmission waterline (bridge to treatment plant)
Existing Earthquake 1, 7 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-8—Replace main transmission waterline (treatment plant to reservoir)
Existing Earthquake 1, 7 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-9—Complete replacement of pinch point (stormwater system) at Penn Place Apartments
New and Existing Flooding 1, 7, 8 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Short-Term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-10—Replace V-ditch catch basins with Type-40 catch basins
New and Existing Flooding 1, 7, 8, 10 City Medium Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-11—Replace trunk lines and add access points for stormwater system
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
8
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and Existing Flooding 1, 7, 8 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-Term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-12—Construct adequate intake structures at inlets to stormwater system
New and Existing Flooding 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-13—Create channel roughness and other water-retaining systems in the Roslyn Urban Forest
New and Existing Flooding 1, 9, 10 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-Term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-14—Provide adequate drainage for road beds and trails in the Roslyn Urban Forest
New and Existing Flooding,
Severe
weather
1, 9, 10 City High Grants, Loans,
Enterprise &
Surplus Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-15—Maintain shaded fuel break at forested perimeter of the Roslyn Urban Forest
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 2, 4, 10 City Low Grants &
General Fund
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-16—Implement Roslyn Urban Forest Land Stewardship Plan and dry site management techniques
to increase forest health and Firewise entire forest
New and Existing Wildfire 1, 2, 10 City High Grants &
General Fund
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-17—Purchase water tender for fire department
New and
Existing
Wildfire 1, 6, 9 City/RFD High AFG Grants &
General Fund
Short-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-18—Provide wildland fire training for fire department
New and
Existing
Wildfire 1, 6, 9 City/RFD Low AFG Grants &
General Fund
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-19—Maintain road beds in the Roslyn Urban Forest for emergency traffic
New and existing Wildfire 1, 9, 10 City Medium AFG Grants &
General Fund
Short-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-20—Retrofit buildings for earthquake protection (focusing on historic structures)
Existing Earthquake 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 City High Grants Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-21—Purchase land for stormwater retention (Duck Town)
New and Existing Flooding,
Severe
Weather
1, 4, 7, 8, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
9
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #R-22—Clear and maintain creeks that capture flows from storm system (Pioneer Park/Runje Field &
Duck Town)
New and Existing Flooding 1, 2, 8, 10 City Medium Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Short-term
Initiative #R-23—Install adequate stormwater system in Brookside Neighborhood
New and Existing Flooding 1, 2, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-24—Install adequate stormwater system in Downtown core
New and Existing Flooding 1, 2, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-25—Install adequate stormwater system in Pioneer Park/Runje Field
New and Existing Flooding 1, 2, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-26—Install adequate stormwater system in 5th Street Addition neighborhood
New and existing Flooding 1, 2, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-27—Install adequate stormwater system in 3rd Street neighborhood
New and Existing Flooding 1, 2, 10 City High Grants,
Stormwater
Funds
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative #R-28—Manage potential increased runoff from new development by adopting regulations that
require new developments to mitigate their impacts.
New Flooding,
Severe
Weather
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9,
10
City/County Low General Fund
Short-term
Initiative #R-29—Reduce water system losses with waterline upgrades and repairs
Existing Drought 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
9
City Medium Water
Fund/Grants
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-30—Adopt development practices that require new developments to bury utility cables in business
zones and major transportation routes
New and Existing Severe
Weather
1, 2, 4, 8, 9 City Low Developer Short-term
Initiative #-31—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of the Kittitas
County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and Existing All Hazards All City Low HMGP, General
Fund, Road
Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
10
Applies to new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #R-32—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and Existing All Hazards 5,6,9 All City
Agencies
Low General Fund Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #R-33—Consider participation in the National Weather Service “Storm Ready” program.
New and Existing Flood, Severe
Weather
6, 7, 9 City Low General Fund Short term
Initiative #R-34—Conduct a detailed flood study for the City of Roslyn
New and Existing Flood 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 City Medium General Fund,
Grants Short-term
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
11
Table 5-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
R-1 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
R-2 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
R-3 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
R-4 1 High High Yes No Yes Medium
R-5 2 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
R-6 2 High High Yes Yes No High
R-7 2 High High Yes Yes No High
R-8 2 Medium High No Yes No High
R-9 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
R-10 4 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
R-11 3 High High Yes Yes No High
R-12 5 High High Yes Yes No High
R-13 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
R-14 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
R-15 5 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
R-16 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
R-17 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High
R-18 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
R-19 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
R-20 5 Medium High No Yes No Low
R-21 5 High High Yes Yes No Medium
R-22 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
R-23 3 High High Yes Yes No Low
R-24 3 High High Yes Yes No High
R-25 3 High High Yes Yes No Low
R-26 3 High High Yes Yes No Low
R-27 3 High High Yes Yes No Low
R-28 7 High High Yes Yes Yes High
R-29 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
R-30 5 Medium Medium Yes No Yes Medium
R-31 10 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
R-32 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
R-33 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
R-34 5 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
12
Table 5-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche — — — — — —
Dam Failure 1, 2, 3, 4, 31 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 31, 32 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 32 1, 2
Drought 1, 2, 3, 4, 29,
31
1, 2 1, 2, 29, 31, 32 1, 2, 29 1, 2, 3, 32 1, 2 6
Earthquake 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 20, 31
1, 2, 3, 4, 20 1, 2, 3, 31, 32 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 32 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
20
Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 31, 34
1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28
1, 2, 3, 31, 34, 33 1, 2, 3, 28 1, 2, 3, 32, 33 1, 2, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27
Landslide 31 31, 32 32
Severe Weather 1, 2, 3, 4, 31,
34
1, 2, 3, 4, 30 1, 2, 3, 31, 34, 33 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 32, 33 1, 2, 30
Seiche — — — — — —
Volcano 1, 2, 3, 4, 31 1,2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 31 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 4, 15,
16, 19, 31
1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
1, 2, 3, 31 1, 2, 3, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19
1, 2, 3, 17, 18 1, 2
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
13
Figure 5-1. City of Roslyn Critical Facilities
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
14
Figure 5-2. City of Roslyn Minimum Temperatures
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
15
Figure 5-3. City of Roslyn Maximum Temperatures
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
16
Figure 5-4. City of Roslyn Average Annual Precipitation
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
17
Figure 5-5. City of Roslyn Potential Wind Power
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
18
Figure 5-6. City of Roslyn Special Flood Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
19
Figure 5-7. City of Roslyn Liquefaction Susceptibility
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
20
Figure 5-8. NEHRP Seismic Soil Site Classes for the City of Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
21
Figure 5-9. Cle Elum Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
22
Figure 5-10. Horse Heaven Hills Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
23
Figure 5-11. Mill Creek Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
24
Figure 5-12. Rattlesnake Wallula Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
25
Figure 5-13. Saddle Mountain Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the City of
Roslyn
CHAPTER 5. CITY OF ROSLYN ANNEX
26
Figure 5-14. City of Roslyn Mean Fire Return Interval
1
Chapter 6.
Town of South Cle Elum
6.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Jim DeVere, Mayor
P.O. Box 160
South Cle Elum, WA 98943
Telephone: (509) 674-4322
Email: cjdevere@msn.com
Scott McKenzie, Superintendent
P.O. Box 160
South Cle Elum, WA 98943
Telephone: (509) 674-4322
Email: sce@inlandnet.com
6.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
– Date of Incorporation—August 20, 1911
– Current Population—575 as of 2011
– Population Growth—The population in the Town of South Cle Elum (Town) increased
21 percent between 2000 and 2010, averaging 2.32 percent per year. Based on the American
Community Survey estimates, the population of the Town decreased from 532 in 2010 to 524
in 2016. Future population growth is limited by remaining available water connections.
– Location and Description—South Cle Elum is bordered on the north by the Yakima River
and the City of Cle Elum. Interstate 90 is also to the north. Unincorporated Kittitas County
surrounds the Town to the east, south and west. Mt. Peoh is to the south, Lookout Mountain is
to the east, Mt. Stuart is to the north and the Cascades are to the west. The Iron Horse State
Park and the John Wayne Trail run along the Town’s southern border.
– Jurisdiction Vulnerability to Hazards— South Cle Elum, along with all jurisdictions in
Kittitas County, has an overall low vulnerability to avalanche, drought, landslide, and volcano
hazards, and an overall high vulnerability to severe weather events. Based on the three dam
failure scenarios used in this plan, 95% of South Cle Elum’s population and 98% of property
is at risk of dam failure. South Cle Elum has high exposure to earthquakes, and various
earthquake scenarios result in losses up to 10% of building value. South Cle Elum has 61
buildings (25% of assessed building value) located in the 100- or 500-year floodplain, and
therefore a high vulnerability to flooding. South Cle Elum has moderate vulnerability to
wildfires, with 5% of buildings exposed to the 0-30 Year Fire Interval.
– Brief History—South Cle Elum was initially developed to serve the Milwaukee Railroad. In
mid-1909, the Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway chose Cle Elum as a division point
between the Coast and Columbia divisions on its future transcontinental line—first as a water,
fuel and crew change location, and later as a full service repair shop, complete with roundhouse.
After electrification, a substation was added. The population during this time was split between
railroaders, coal miners and loggers. When the Milwaukee Railroad went into receivership in
the late 1970s, the State of Washington converted the right-of-way into a state park.
– Climate—Located between the Cascade Mountains and the plains of central Washington, the
Town of South Cle Elum enjoys four distinct seasons. The seasons are tempered by the Town’s
elevation at close to 2,000 feet above sea level. Summers are usually dry and warm to hot, with
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
2
high temperatures between 80ºF and 100ºF and mostly westerly breezes that make the weather
seem somewhat cooler. Cooler temperatures and changing foliage mark the change toward
winter weather, which generally arrives between Thanksgiving and Christmas . Winter can
bring temperatures from +20ºF to –20ºF. Colder temperatures usually come in January. In the
spring, the snow melts and temperatures warm again.
– Governing Body Format—The town of South Cle Elum is governed by a five-member
council and a mayor. This governing body is elected to four-year terms. This body will assume
responsibility for adoption, implementation and maintenance of this plan.
– Development Trends—Development in South Cle Elum trends towards residential uses at this
time and into the foreseeable future. The Town does have space for some light industry and
commercial development, but selectively so. Urban growth boundaries are going to be static
except to the east, where the city hopes to expand in the future.
6.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 6-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive loss records are as
follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 1
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
6.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 6-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The 2018 plan rankings remained the same as the
previous plan update.
6.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 6-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6-4. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-6.
6.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 6-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 6-8 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 6-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
3
Table 6-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Flood Event FEMA 1817 DR 2009 61,688.00
Earthquake 02-28-2001 N/A
Earthquake 05-03-1996 N/A
Earthquake 01-29-1995 N/A
Earthquake 02-14-1981 N/A
Earthquake 04-29-1965 N/A
Table 6-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Flood 27
2 Wildfire 27
3 Earthquake 24
4 Dam Failure 18
5 Severe Weather 18
6 Landslide 10
7 Volcano 6
8 Drought 5
9 Avalanche 1
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
4
Table 6-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes No Yes Title 15 SCEMC adopts the
2009 IBC, 7/27/2010
Zonings Yes No No No Title 17, SCEMC, 2001
Subdivisions Yes No No No Title 16, SCEMC, 2005
Stormwater Management No No No No
Post Disaster Recovery No No Yes Yes RCW 64.06.020
Real Estate Disclosure Yes No No Yes RCW 36.70A
Growth Management Yes No No Yes Title 15 SCEMC, 2010
Site Plan Review
Yes No No No
Flood damage Prevention: Title
15, Chapter 15.24; 2002
Critical Areas: Title 18,
SCEMC, 2010
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical areas) Yes Yes No Yes Title 15 SCEMC adopts the
2009 IBC, 7/27/2010
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive
Plan Yes No No Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan
Yes No No No
Kittitas County Comprehensive
Floodplain Management Plan,
1996
Stormwater Plan Yes No No No
Capital Improvement Plan
Yes No No No
5-year CIP, updated annually for
streets, water, sewer and
drainage
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No No
Economic Development Plan Yes No No No Economic Development Group
of Kittitas County & Chamber
Emergency Response Plan No No No No
Shoreline Management Plan Yes Yes No No
Post Disaster Recovery Plan No No No No
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
5
Table 6-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land
management practices
Yes
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction
practices
Yes
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis As-needed basis
Floodplain manager Yes
Surveyors Yes
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area As-needed basis
Emergency manager Yes
Grant writers Yes
Table 6-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other
Table 6-6. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No -- --
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3/3 --
Public Protection No -- --
Storm Ready No -- --
Firewise No -- --
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
6
Table 6-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to
new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Initiative SCE #1—Retrofit sewer mains in flood hazard areas.
Existing Flood,
Earthquake
1,2,3,4,5 Town High,
$500,000
General Fund, Capital
improvements project
funding, FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative SCE #2—Retrofit water mains within the flood hazard areas.
New and
Existing
Flood, EQ 1,2,3,4,5 Town High
$750,000
General Fund, Capital
improvements project
funding, FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants,
CDBG
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative SCE #3—Maintain and retrofit existing localized flood control structures.
Existing Flood 1,2,3,4,5 Town Low
$24,000
General Fund Short-term
Ongoing
Initiative SCE #4—Retrofit all critical infrastructure to enhance resilience to all hazards.
Existing All Hazards 1,2,3,4,5 Town High General Fund, Capital
improvements project
funding, FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants
Long-term,
depends on
funding
Initiative SCE #5 —Adopt appropriate regulatory standards that will reduce the risk of natural hazards
through updates to existing code affecting critical areas regulations, flood hazard regulations, shoreline
regulations, and updates to Kittitas County’s comprehensive plan.
New All Hazards 1,3,4,9,10 Town Low General Fund Short-Term
Initiative SCE #6—Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance
Program.
New and
Existing
Flood 1,2,3,4,6,8,1
0
Town Low General Fund Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative SCE #7— Retrofit the overflow for the municipal water supply.
Existing All Hazards 1,2,8 Town High,
$150,000
General Fund, Water
Fund Reserve
Mid-Term
Initiative SCE #8—Participate in Firewise and conduct a study on wildfire prevention and policies.
New and
existing
Wildfire 1,3,6,7,9 Town Low General Fund, Pre-
Disaster Mitigation
Grant Program
Short-term
Initiative SCE #9—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-
prone areas to protect structures from future damage, prioritizing properties exposed to repetitive losses.
Existing All Hazards 1,2,8,10 Town High Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program, Local
contribution
Long-Term
depends on
funding
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
7
Applies to
new or
existing assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Initiative SCE #10—Develop a continuity of operations plan and/or a post-disaster recovery plan to sustain
operation of critical Town functions.
New and
existing
All Hazards 1,6,9 Emergency
Managemen
t Staff
Medium General fund, Dept. of
Homeland Security
grant funding
Long-term
Initiative SCE #11—Educate the public on natural hazards, the risks they pose, and ways to reduce those risk
through existing public information programs with the Town.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 6,7,9 Town Low General Fund Short-term
Ongoing
Initiative SCE #12—Continue to support implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of the
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All Town Low HMGP, General Fund,
Road Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative SCE #13—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 5,6,9 Town Low General Fund Short-term
Ongoing
Initiative SCE #14—Maintain and retrofit critical transportation infrastructure (particularly infrastructure
allowing access to the town)
New and
Existing
All Hazards 1,8 Town Medium General Fund, Capital
improvements project
funding, FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants
Ongoing
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
8
Table 6-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Priority*
1 5 High High Yes Yes No Medium
2 5 High High Yes Yes No High
3 5 High Medium Yes No Yes High
4 5 High High Yes Yes No Medium
5 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
6 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
7 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
8 5 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
9 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium
10 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
11 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High
12 10 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
13 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
14 2 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
9
Table 6-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13, 14 --
Dam failure 5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13, 14 --
Drought 5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13 --
Earthquake 5, 12, 13 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13, 14 --
Flood 5, 6, 12, 13 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
9, 14
6, 11, 12, 13 -- 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 --
Landslide 5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13, 14 --
Severe
Weather
5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 7, 10, 13, 14 --
Volcano 5, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 14 11, 12, 13 -- 10, 13, 14 --
Wildfire 5, 8, 12, 13 4, 7, 8, 9, 14 8, 11, 12, 13 8 8, 10, 13, 14 --
Notes:
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural syste ms.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
10
Figure 6-1. Town of South Cle Elum Critical Facilities
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
11
Figure 6-2. Town of South Cle Elum Minimum Temperature
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
12
Figure 6-3. Town of South Cle Elum Maximum Temperature
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
13
Figure 6-4. Town of South Cle Elum Average Annual Precipitation
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
14
Figure 6-5. Town of South Cle Elum Potential Wind Power
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
15
Figure 6-6. Town of South Cle Elum Special Flood Hazard Areas
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
16
Figure 6-7. Town of South Cle Elum Liquefaction Susceptibility
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
17
Figure 6-8. NEHRP Seismic Soil Site Classes for the Town of South Cle Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
18
Figure 6-9. Cle Elum Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the Town of South Cle
Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
19
Figure 6-10. Horse Heaven Hills Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the Town of
South Cle Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
20
Figure 6-11. Mill Creek Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the Town of South Cle
Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
21
Figure 6-12. Rattlesnake Wallula Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the Town of
South Cle Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
22
Figure 6-13. Saddle Mountain Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration for the Town of
South Cle Elum
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
23
Figure 6-14. Town of South Cle Elum Liquefaction Susceptibility
CHAPTER 6. TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM ANNEX
24
Figure 6-15. Town of South Cle Elum Mean Fire Return Interval
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 3—
FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ANNEXES
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
1
Chapter 7.
Fire District #1 Annex
7.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Brandon Schmidt Fire Chief
PO Box 34 / 10700 N. Thorp Hwy
Thorp Wash. 98946
Telephone: 509-964-2435
Email: kcfd1@fairpoint.net
Craig George Fire Commissioner Chairman
PO Box 34 / 10700 N. Thorp Hwy
Thorp Wash. 98946
Telephone: 509-964-2435
Email: kcfd1@fairpoint.net
7.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
Kittitas County Fire District #1 is mostly a rural area with small to medium residential areas interspersed through the
wildland-urban interface areas. The District provides emergency medical service and fire protection on over 43.5 sq.
miles, which is intersected by 11 miles of Interstate 90, 10 miles of SR 10, 9 miles of SR 97, 12 miles of the Yakima
River, and 12 miles of BNSF Railway track. All of this service is provided by a crew of 28 volunteer firefighters, 9 of
which are emergency medical technicians. Funding comes to the junior taxing district through property taxes and
grants.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served— 2500 as of 2009 (Amended)
– Land Area Served— 43.5 sq. miles
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is $171,631,639
– Land Area Owned— 2.95 acres (two stations)
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 2000 GMC pumper
– 2006 Pierce Pumper
– 2007 GMC Brush Truck
– 2008 Kenworth Tender
– 2002 Ford Brush Truck
– 1995 Chev Rescue
– 1984 International Pumper
– 2018 GMC Command Vehicle
– 1990 Ford Tender
– 1999 Ford Support vehicle
– 2000 Ford Brush Truck
– 1995 Chev Aid Unit
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure and
equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $940,000
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
2
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– Station 11 Thorp $350,957
– Station 12 Clark Flats, 2 Buildings $179,305
– Station 11 Storage Container $3,000
– Total Value of Critical Facilities— The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is
$533,262.
Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Call volume is on the increase. 2017 saw the department hit 200 calls
for the first time and 2018 is looking to surpass that number. People are building and moving into the district. Traffic
volume continues to increase on Interstate 90. Wildland fires are on the increase for the county and FD1 is responding
mutual aid to surrounding districts more often.
7.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 7-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
7.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 7-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from wildfire and flooding,
with moderate risk from severe storms, earthquakes and landslides. There is low risk from all other hazards.
7.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans that apply to Fire Di strict 1 and are also applicable to this
hazard mitigation plan:
– Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan, final rule CFR part 201.4
– Building Code KCC 14.04
– Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan
– Emergency Response Plan
– Critical Areas KCC 17A.05
– Federal and state occupational safety and labor-and-industry mandates
– Firewise programs within the County supported by Kittitas County Conservation District, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Forest Service, and the fire districts.
7.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 7-3.
7.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 7-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 7-5 identifies the priority for
each initiative. Table 7-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types.
Table 7-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Wildfire 08/13/2012 N/A
Winter Weather 3/25/2011 N/A
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
3
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Winter Weather 3/02/2009 N/A
Winter Weather 1/30/2009 N/A
Flooding 1/9/2009 N/A
Wildfire 8/3/2005 N/A
Wildfire 7/30/2004 N/A
Wildfire 7/26/2004 N/A
Wildfire 7/2/2004 N/A
Wildfire 7/29/2003 N/A
Flooding 1/31/2003 N/A
Earthquake (Nisqually) 3/1/2001 N/A
Winter Weather 1/17/1997 N/A
Flooding 2/9/1996 N/A
Flooding/High Winds 1/3/1996 N/A
Winter Weather 2/19/1993 N/A
Flooding 11/26/1990 N/A
Flooding 1/18/1986 N/A
Volcanic Eruption 5/21/1980 N/A
Flooding/Mudslide 12/10/1977 N/A
Flooding 12/13/1975 N/A
Flooding/Landslide 12/22/1972 N/A
Landslide 6/70 N/A
Flooding/Landslide 1/26/1965 N/A
Heavy Rains/ Flooding 12/29/1964 N/A
Table 7-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Wildfire 3x6=18
1 Flood 3x6=18
2 Severe Storms/Wind 3x5=15
3 Earthquake 2x6=12
4 Landslides 2x5=10
5 Volcano/Lahar 1x3=3
5 Dam Failure 1x3=3
6 Drought 2x1=2
7 Avalanche 0
7 Tsunami (Seiche) 0
Table 7-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection Yes 6/9 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise Yes — —
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
4
Table 7-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #KCFD1-1—Participate in the “Firewise” program by identifying project site locations and
promoting Firewise techniques as a defensible space initiative. Coordinate with and donate to Kittitas Fire
Adapted Communities.
New and
Existing
Wildfire 6,7,9 KCFD-1 Low District Funds Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative# KCFD1-2—Continue to provide fire safety, fire prevention and Firewise education to
neighborhoods, schools and community via web pages, signage and outreach.
New and
Existing
Wildfire 6,7,9 KCFD-1 Low Firewise Grant,
District Funds
Short Term
Initiative KCFD1-3—Develop and maintain a coordinated approach between fire jurisdictions and water
supply agencies to identify needed improvements to the water distribution system, initially focusing on areas of
highest wildfire hazard.
New & Existing Wildfire 1,9,10 KCFD-1 Low District Funds Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative KCFD1-4—Require that development in high fire hazard areas provide adequate access roads,
onsite fire protection systems, evacuation signage and fire breaks.
New Wildfire 1,2,3,9,10 KCFD-1 Low County/District
Funds
Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative # KCFD1-5—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All KCFD-1 Low HMGP, District
funds
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #KCFD1-6—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified
in volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 5,6,9 KCFD-1 Low District Funds Short-term,
Ongoing
Initiative #KCFD1-7— Build crew quarters, in order to improve response time, capabilities, and quality of
facilities.
New Wildfire 1,10 KCFD-1 High County/District
Funds
Long-term
Initiative #KCFD1-8— Cycle out the 1990 watertender for a new, tactical watertender more suited for
wildland fires
New and
Existing
Wildfire 1,10 KCFD-1 Medium County/District
Fund
Short-term
Initiative #KCFD1-9— Study evacuation routes (including inundation patterns and high-water evacuation
routes in case of dam failure)
Existing All Hazards 1,6,7,9 KCFD-1,
County,
USBR
Medium County/District
Fund
Long-term
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
5
Initiative #KCFD1-10— Site-specific location mitigation, including thinning and/or fire break development
near Elk Heights
New and
Existing
Wildfire 1,4,8,10 KCFD-1,
DNR
Medium County/District
Fund
Ongoing
Table 7-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative #
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
KCFD1-1 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
KCFD1-2 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
KCFD1-3 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
KCFD1-4 5 High Low Yes No Yes High
KCFD1-5 10 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
KCFD1-6 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
KCFD1-7 1 High High Yes Yes Yes Low
KCFD1-8 1 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
KCFD1-9 10 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
KCFD1-10 1 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 7. FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX
6
Table 7-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6.
Structural
Projects
Avalanche — — 9 — 9 —
Dam Failure 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Drought 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Earthquake 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Flood 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Landslide 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Severe Weather 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Seiche — — 9 — 9 —
Volcano 5 5, 6, 9 6, 9
Wildfire 1, 3, 4 1, 4, 10 1,2, 6, 9 1 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 7, 8
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a ha zard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 8. FIRE DISTRICT #7 ANNEX
1
Chapter 8.
Fire District #7 Annex
8.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Roy Palmer, Fire Chief
Kittitas County Fire District 7
123 East 1st Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Telephone: 509-674-5371
Email: roypalmer@kcfd7.com
Assistant Chief
Kittitas County Fire District 7
123 East 1st Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Telephone: 509-674-5371
Email: office@kcfd7.com
8.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
Kittitas County Fire District #7 (Kittitas County Fire & Rescue) is a large rural fire district on the east slope
of the Cascade mountain range, 90 miles east of Seattle and 35 miles west of Ellensburg. KCFD #7
encompasses 110 square miles, with a population of 3,526 people. The district protects a 20-mile stretch of
the I-90 corridor, a major transportation route from Seattle. The district borders the town of Easton to the
west and surrounds the cities of Cle Elum and Roslyn, South Cle Elum and the township of Ronald (KCFD
#6). The district lies in a high value forest and open range environment along the east slope of the Cascade
mountain range.
The district actively responds to wildfires, structure fires, light rescue and emergency medical incidents,
with an average call volume of 500 incidents per year. The district has 16 paid positions and 40-plus
volunteer firefighters. The district participates in the countywide mutual aid agreement.
The fire district is a junior taxing district organized in 1980 under Revised Code of Washington, (RCW)
Title 52. The governing body is a three-member elected board of commissioners that will assume the
responsibility for adoption and implementation of this plan. The fire chief is the chief executive officer for
the district and is responsible for the administration of any policies or program adopted by the board of fire
commissioners.
The district population is predominately located in the wildland-urban interface, along the slopes of the
upper Kittitas valley. In an area known for intense wildfire behavior, the fire district actively partners with
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Forest service to prevent and extinguish
wildland fires.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
• Population Served - 4,511 as of the 2018 population estimate
• Land Area Served - 126 square miles (See Figure 8-1)
• Value of Area Served - The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$2,429,120,426
• Land Area Owned - 11.5 acres
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
2
Figure 8-1. Fire District #7 Boundaries
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 8 Type 1 Engines, Total value $775,000.
– 1 Type 1 Ladder Trucks, Total Value $150,000
– 1 Mobile Air Unit, Total value $5,000
– 4 Aid Units, Total Value $60,000
– 7 Support Units, Total Value $40,000
– 9 Wild-land Units, Total Value $140,000
– 7 Water Tenders, Total Value $310,000
– Communications/Radios, Total Value $150,000
– Computer Equipment, Total Value $200,000
– Small equipment, Total Value $500,000
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment – The total value of critical
infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $3,829,367.
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction
– 8 Fire Stations
CHAPTER 8. FIRE DISTRICT #7 ANNEX
3
Total Value of Critical Facilities - The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $8,584,851.
Current and Anticipated Service Trends - An increase in new vacation home construction,
results in a minor increase in population growth but greater recreational intensity in the
district. Due to the increase of tourism and recreational activity, the district may see a slight
increase in overall responses.
8.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 8-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
8.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 8-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from wildfire, with
severe storms ranked second. The area has moderate risk from flooding, earthquakes and landslides. There
is low risk from all other hazards.
8.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– Enhanced State hazard Mitigation Plan, final rule CFR part 201.4
– Building Code KCC 14.04
– Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan
– Emergency Response Plan
– Critical Areas KCC 17A.05
– Federal and state occupational safety and labor-and-industry mandates
– Firewise programs within the County supported by Kittitas County Conservation District,
Washington Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Forest Service, and the fire districts.
– Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
8.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 8-3.
8.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 8-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 8-5 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 8-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
8.8. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
Seismic data is needed to highlight specific hazard locations and potential vulnerabilities within the district,
and to support potential remodeling or replacement.
CHAPTER 8. FIRE DISTRICT #7 ANNEX
4
8.9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Currently, the county is under significant water availability restrictions. Federal and state agencies need to
recognize and authorize allowances to support construction of emergency facilities that serve the
community at large and in particular, provide for ready access to water for fire-fighting purposes.
Table 8-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Severe winter storm 03/25/2011 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 03/02/2009 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/30/2009 No estimate available
Earthquake/Nisqually 03/01/2001 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/17/1997 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 02/09/1996 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/03/1996 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 11/26/1990 No estimate available
Volcanic eruption/ St. Helens 05/21/1980 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/10/1977 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/13/1975 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/29/1964 No estimate available
Table 8-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Wildland Fire 54
2 Severe winter storm 27
3 Flooding 18
4 Earthquake 12
5 Landslide 8
6 Avalanche 2
7 Dam Failure 2
8 Volcano/Lahar 1
9 Drought 1
10 Tsunami/Seiche 1
Table 8-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection Yes 7/9 9/2009
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 8. FIRE DISTRICT #7 ANNEX
5
Table 8-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative # FD7-01—Ensure a reliable source of water for fire suppression, meeting acceptable standards for
minimum volume and flow requirements for existing and new development. a
New & Existing Wildfire 1, 4 Community
development
Medium Developers,
FEMA
Short term/
ongoing
Initiative # FD7-02—Develop and maintain a coordinated approach between fire jurisdictions and water
supply agencies to identify improvements to the water distribution system, initially focusing on areas of highest
wildfire hazard.
New & Existing Wildfire 1, 4, 9 KCFD #7 Low District funds Short term/
ongoing
Initiative # FD7-03—Enforce a minimum road width of 20 feet on all roadways greater than 50 feet in length
New & Existing All Hazards 1, 4, 10 Fire marshal Low County Funds Short term/
ongoing
Initiative # FD7-04—Adopt a Firewise program creating a 30-foot defensible space along all public roadways,
allowing for safe evacuation routes.
New & Existing All Hazards 1, 4, 10 Community
development
Low County Funds Short term/
ongoing
Initiative # FD7-05—Replace or significantly retrofit existing fire stations to meet critical infrastructure
standards.
New & Existing Wildfire 4 KCFD #7 High District funds Long term
Initiative #FD7-06—Ensure all dead-end public roads have adequate turn around for fire equipment.
New & Existing All Hazards 1, 4 Community
Development
Low County Funds Short term/
ongoing
Initiative #FD7-07—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
New & Existing All Hazards 5, 9 KCFD# 7 Low District funds Short term/
ongoing
Initiative #FD7-08—Support countywide initiatives related to hazard mitigation efforts.
New & Existing All Hazards 9 KCFD #7 Low District funds Short term/
ongoing
CHAPTER 8. FIRE DISTRICT #7 ANNEX
6
Table 8-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
01 2 High Medium Yes Yes No High
02 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
03 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
04 1 High Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
05 1 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium
06 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
07 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
08 1 High Low Yes No Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 8-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6.
Structural
Projects
Avalanche 7, 8 3,4
Dam Failure 7, 8 3,4,6
Drought 7, 8
Earthquake 7, 8 3,4,6
Flood 7, 8 3,4,6
Landslide 7, 8 3,4,6
Severe Weather 7, 8 3,4,6
Seiche 7, 8 3,4,6
Volcano 7, 8 3,4,6
Wildfire 2, 7, 8 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
1
Chapter 9.
Fire District #51 Annex
9.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Jay Wiseman – Fire Chief
P.O. Box 99
Snoqualmie Pass, WA 98068
Telephone: 425-761-0781
Email: jwiseman@snoqualmiepassfirerescue.org
Troy Donlin
P.O. Box 99
Snoqualmie Pass, WA 98068
Telephone: 425-434-6333
Email: tdonlin@snoqualmiepassfirerescue.org
9.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
King and Kittitas County Fire District 51 (dba Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue) is a fire protection district
that provides structural fire, wildland fire, emergency medical response and rescue operations in the
Snoqualmie Pass/ Lake Kachess / Stampede Pass areas of Kittitas County and along I-90 from Milepost 42
to Milepost 67. Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue is a dual County Fire District in both King and Kittitas
Counties. Approximately one third of the District is in King County and 2 thirds in Kittitas County The
district was formed in the early 1970s and is funded through property taxes and is run by an elected Board
of Fire Commissioners who appoint a Chief of the Department for day-to-day operations. Besides the
property owners and residents within Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue, the District also provides service to
the I-90 corridor, which has up to 40,000 vehicles per day travel across it. The Districts primary industry is
the Summit at Snoqualmie Ski Resort with four separate base area facilities including food and beverage
services and maintenance facilities. The Summit at Snoqualmie also has approximately 40 chair lifts. The
following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Population Served—1000 as of 2018
– Land Area Served—Approximately 40 square miles
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$470,507,209
– Land Area Owned—Approximately 1/3 acre
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 4 – Fire Engine: $1,400,000
– 3 – Aid Car: $300,000
– 4 – Brush Trucks: $200,000
– All portable equipment located in the emergency vehicles and station: $100,000
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $10,000,000.
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– Fire Station #83: $150,000
– Fire Station 291: $6,000,000
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
2
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is: $6,150,000
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends— As the transient population traveling over I-90
continues to increase, so do the District’s calls for service. The vast majority of responses are
directly related to incidents on I-90. The Community is also growing and calls for service have
increased due to this growth.
Figure 9-1. Fire District 51 Boundaries
9.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 9-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
9.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 9-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from earthquakes,
with severe storms ranked second. The area has moderate risk from flooding, wildfire, and volcano. There
is low risk from all other hazards.
9.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan, final rule CFR part 201.4
– Building Code KCC 14.04
– Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan
– Emergency Response Plan
– Critical Areas KCC 17A.05
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
3
– Federal and state occupational safety and labor-and-industry mandates
– Firewise programs within the County supported by Kittitas County Conservation District,
Washington Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Forest Service, and the fire districts.
– Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
9.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 9-3.
9.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 9-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 9-5 identifies the
priority for each initiative. Table 9-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six
mitigation types.
9.8. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
The District’s service area is extremely vulnerable to avalanche events that could isolate the area or cause
a large population to become trapped in the area. The other major concern is failure of the dam on either
Lake Keechelus or Lake Kachess, which would cause a major flooding event and potentially isolate portions
of the district. There there is only one facilities within the District that could serve as a command post or
emergency shelter if a major hazard incident were to occur. Station 291 has an emergency diesel generator
and can serve as an incident command post, EOC and an emergency shelter.
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
4
Table 9-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Severe winter storm 03/25/2011 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 03/02/2009 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/30/2009 No estimate available
Earthquake/Nisqually 03/01/2001 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/17/1997 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 02/09/1996 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 01/03/1996 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 11/26/1990 No estimate available
Volcanic eruption/ St. Helens 05/21/1980 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/10/1977 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/13/1975 No estimate available
Severe winter storm 12/29/1964 No estimate available
Table 9-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Earthquake 54
2 Severe winter storm 27
3 Flooding 18
4 Wildfire 12
5 Volcano/Lahars 8
6 Landslide 2
6 Avalanche 2
7 Dam Failure 1
7 Drought 1
7 Tsunami/Seiche 1
Table 9-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection Yes 8/9 —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
5
Table 9-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #FD8-01—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
New & Existing New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New & Existing New &
Existing
Initiative #FD8-02—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and Existing New and
Existing
Initiative #FD8-03—Participate in the Firewise program by identifying project site locations and promoting
Firewise techniques as a defensible space initiative.
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and
Existing
New and Existing New and
Existing
Initiative #FD8-04—Comply with all applicable building and fire codes, as well as other regulations when
constructing or significantly remodeling infrastructure facilities.
New & Existing New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New & Existing New &
Existing
Initiative #FD8-05—Require that development in high fire hazard areas provide adequate access roads, onsite
fire protection systems, evacuation signage and fire breaks.
New New New New New New New
Initiative #FD8-06—Enhance communication capabilities between agencies, coordination of radio types and
use of existing and new systems.
New & Existing New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New &
Existing
New & Existing New &
Existing
Table 9-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
1 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
3 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
4 4 High Low Yes No Yes High
5 4 High Low Yes No Yes High
6 4 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 9. FIRE DISTRICT #51 ANNEX
6
Table 9-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Dam Failure 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Drought 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Earthquake 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Flood 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Landslide 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Severe
Weather
1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Seiche 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Volcano 1, 2 4 1, 2 6
Wildfire 1, 2 3, 4, 5 1, 2 3 6
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 4—
UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEXES
1
Chapter 10.
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Annex
10.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Tom Hastings, General Manager
181 Treatment Plant Road
PO Box 131
Snoqualmie Pass, WA 98068
Telephone: (425) 434-6633
Email: thastings@snopass.org
Gannon Geiger
181 Treatment Plant Road
PO Box 131
Snoqualmie Pass, WA 98068
Telephone: (425) 434-6633
Email: ggeiger@snopass.org
10.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District was formed in 1984 when the Summit Sewer District and Kittitas County
Sewer District 1 were consolidated into a single district operating under RCW Chapter 57. Those original
districts were located on opposite sides of the King-Kittitas county line. The joined District operates in both
counties to provide water and sewer service to residential and commercial customers. The District is located
near the western summit of Snoqualmie Pass along I-90 at an elevation of approximately 3,000 feet, and
serves the needs of year-round residents, travelers, and recreational visitors. The area is adjacent to the
popular “Summit at Snoqualmie” day-use ski area, with heavy visitation during winter weekends.
A Board of Commissioners consisting of three local citizens elected on a non-partisan basis governs the
District. The Commissioners establish policies, set rates, adopt system plans for water and sewer utilities
and approve the revenue obligations. In addition, the Commissioners appoint the General Manager. The
General Manager is directly responsible to the board of Commissioners and is the Chief Executive of the
District.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served—300 full time and 20,000 peak
– Land Area Served—1,785 acres
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$70,000,000
– Land Area Owned—7 acres
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 13.87 miles of water mains, 4 production wells, 3 reservoirs, 5 pressure-reducing-valve
stations, with an estimated value of $4,535,740
– 16.56 miles of sanitary sewer mains, 2 pump stations and 1 treatment plant , with an
estimated value of $6,793,258
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $11,328,998
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– Wastewater Treatment Plant. Located at 370 Treatment Plant Road, Snoqualmie Pass.
Onsite buildings consist of the Treatment Plant (3,942 square feet), constructed in
CHAPTER 10. SNOQUALMIE PASS UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEX
2
1983, the Headworks building (600 square feet) constructed in 2009 and the
Maintenance Shop (4,042 square feet) constructed in 1995 with an addition constructed
in 2003. A remote building known as the Pipe Galley (286 square feet), located 1 mile
southwest, was constructed in 1983. Joint Hyak maintenance facility (4,000 square
feet) (shared property between SPUD and County) located at 930 Hyak Drive East,
constructed in 2013.
– Future Capital Projects: See Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Water Comprehensive
Plan and Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan for a list of
upcoming capital projects. These projects will have a combined estimated value of
$10,000,000 - $13,000,000.
– Total Value of Critical Facilities— The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $2,770,591. The value of future capital projects (water and sewer) will total
$10,000,000 - $13,000,000.
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends— The District estimates that 300 full-time
residents currently live at Snoqualmie Pass, with an additional 500 seasonal residents on a peak
winter ski weekend. In addition to residential population, the area has a large transient
population, including travelers on I-90 who stop to use facilities at the pass, and day-use winter
sports participants. A peak day-use population of 20,000 was estimated for a recent heavy ski
year. The District’s current growth rate of single family homes is 8%.
10.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 10-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
10.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 10-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from severe storm,
earthquake, and wildfire, with moderate risk from avalanche, flooding, and landslides. There is low risk
from all other hazards.
10.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Water Comprehensive Plan
– Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan
– Emergency Response Plan
– King County Hazard Mitigation Plan
10.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 10-3.
10.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 10-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 10-5 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table 10-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
CHAPTER 10. SNOQUALMIE PASS UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEX
3
Table 10-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Severe Winter Storm And Record And Near Record Snow (DR-1825) 3/2/2009 N/A
Winter Storm (DR 1817) 1/17/2009 $50,000
Severe Winter Storms, Land & Muds Slides, & Flooding, (DR-1159) 1/17/1997 N/A
Severe Storms & Flooding (DR-883) 11/26/1990 N/A
Severe Storms, Mudslides, & Flooding, (DR-545) 12/10/1977 N/A
Table 10-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Severe Winter Storm 24
1 Earthquake 24
1 Wildland Fire 24
2 Avalanche 6
2 Flood 6
2 Landslide 6
3 Dam Failure 0
3 Volcano 0
3 Tsunami 0
3 Drought 0
Table 10-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection No — —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 10. SNOQUALMIE PASS UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEX
4
Table 10-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #SPUD-01-Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance and updating of this
plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 2,8,9 SPUD Low District funds Short-term/
ongoing
Initiative #SPUD-02—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in
Volume 1 of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 5,6,9 SPUD Low District Funds Short-term/
Ongoing
Initiative #SPUD-03—Develop a continuity of operations plan that looks at sustaining operations following
disasters.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 1, 9, 10 SPUD Low District Funds,
DHS Grant
funding
Short-term
Initiative #SPUD-04—Partner with other local governments in educating citizens on potential consequences
associated with natural hazards and opportunities to mitigate their impacts.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 2, 8, 9 SPUD Low District General
Fund
Short-term,
ongoing
Initiative #SPUD-05— Consider hazard mitigation and resiliency during the implementation of projects listed
in the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Water Comprehensive Plan and the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
New All Hazards 1, 2, 10 SPUD High District General
Fund, USDA
Funds
Long-term
Initiative #SPUD-06— Increase fire flow storage across the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District. Two expansions
are planned in the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Water Comprehensive Plan.
New Earthquake,
Flood,
Wildfire
1, 8 SPUD High District General
Fund, USDA
Funds, grants
Long-term
Initiative #SPUD-07— Implement wastewater treatment facility improvements, with the goal of improving the
resiliency of the wastewater treatment system to the impacts of natural hazards.
New Earthquake,
Flood,
Wildfire
1, 8 SPUD High District General
Fund, USDA
Funds, grants
Long-term
CHAPTER 10. SNOQUALMIE PASS UTILITY DISTRICT ANNEX
5
Table 10-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
1 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
3 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
4 3 Low Low Yes No Yes Yes
5 3 High High Yes Yes No High
6 2 High High Yes Yes No High
7 2 High High Yes Yes No High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 10-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6.
Structural
Projects
Avalanche 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Dam Failure 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Drought — 5, 7 — — — —
Earthquake 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Flood 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Landslide 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Severe Weather 1, 2 5, 7 1, 2, 4 3
Seiche — 5, 7 — — — —
Volcano — 5, 7 — — — —
Wildfire 1, 2 5, 6, 7 1, 2, 4 6 3, 6
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to redu ce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
1
Chapter 11.
Kittitas PUD #1 Annex
11.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
General Manager
1400 Vantage Highway
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-933-7200
Email: kcpud@kittitaspud.com
Finance Manager
1400 Vantage Highway
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-933-7200
Email: kcpud@kittitaspud.com
11.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
Public Utility District (PUD) #1 of Kittitas County is a special purpose district classified as a political
subdivision of the state under the laws of the State of Washington. The District was established by a vote
of the electorate in 1936, under Chapter 1 of the 1931 laws of the state, for the purpose of engaging in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy. The District’s service area covers most of
Kittitas County and a small portion of Yakima County.
The PUD is governed by a Board of Commissioners, consisting of three local citizens elected by the people
of Kittitas County. The Commissioners represent three districts. One commissioner is elected every two
years in the November general election to serve a six-year term. Under the guidance of the elected
commissioners, the District delivers affordable, dependable electricity to rural and urban areas. The
commission establishes policy, approves plans, budgets and expenditures and reviews the District’s
operations. The legal responsibilities and powers of the District, including the establishment of rates and
charges for services rendered, are exercised through the commission. In addition, the Commissioners
appoint a General Manager to administer District policies and conduct PUD business. The General Manager
is supported by 17 full-and part-time employees.
The District is a statutory preference customer of the Bonneville Power Administration and currently
purchases approximately 90 percent of its power from Bonneville. The rest of the District’s power is
primarily supplied by the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project (nearly 10 percent).
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served—10,702 people as of 2016 based upon the Census Bureau estimate of
Kittitas County average household size
– Land Area Served—359 square miles
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$1,094,902,905.
– Land Area Owned—15.49 acres
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 13 miles of transmission lines, 490 miles of overhead distribution lines, 190 miles of
underground distribution lines, 7 electrical substations and 4 metered points of power
delivery with an estimated value of $25,968,494.
– FCC-licensed radio system for crew dispatching and emergency services and response
valued at $65,736.
CHAPTER 11. KITTITAS PUD #1 ANNEX
2
– Line Truck, Double Bucket, Service Bucket, Backhoe, Flat Bead, Foreman Truck with an
estimated value of $951,966.
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $26,986,196.
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– Main Office and Headquarters, located at 1400 Vantage Highway in Ellensburg. The on-
site buildings consist of the 2-story main office building (2400 square feet including an
records archive and data center in the basement), the engineering / operations building
(1345 square feet-remodeled in 2009), and meter shop with attached conference room
(1900 square feet-remodeled in 2009), with an estimated value of $917,998.
– Warehouse and Material Yard, located behind and adjacent to the main office at 1400
Vantage Highway in Ellensburg. These facilities include the vehicle storage building (2400
square feet – constructed in 2008), the material storage yard/loading dock (0.83 acres), the
material warehouse (3000 square feet – future plans include replacing, remodeling or
expansion of this building). The value of these facilities is estimated to be $118,703.
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $1,036,701
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends—The Kittitas PUD 2008 Power Requirements
Study projects the number of consumers, energy sales and capacity requirements through the
end of 2017. This projection anticipates that the PUD will increase by 29 percent. Total energy
sales are also projected to increase significantly by 2017. This projected increase is based upon
the anticipated increase in consumers coupled with the changing consumption patterns by
consumer class.
Recent economic activity has shown that the power requirements projection may have been a
bit high. The 2010 US census reported that Kittitas County has seen a population increase of
22.6 percent in the last 10 years while Washington State increased only 14.1 percent. So a 20
to 25 percent growth rate may be a safer projection.
11.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 11-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
11.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 11-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from severe
weather and flooding, with wildfire and drought having moderate-high risk. Avalanche, landslide, dam
failure, and volcano pose a moderate risk, with seiche being a low risk hazard.
11.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– National Electrical Safety Code
– National Electrical Code
– National Environmental Protection Act
– Federal Endangered Species Act
– Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act
– Washington State Building Code
CHAPTER 11. KITTITAS PUD #1 ANNEX
3
– Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington (Washington Administrative
Code 296-45)
– Occupational Safety and Health Administration
– Kittitas County PUD Oil Spill Containment and Countermeasure Plan
– The District must adhere to all applicable codes and regulations enforced by federal, state and
local authorities with a sphere of influence within the District service area.
11.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 11-3.
11.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 11-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 11-5 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table 11-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
Table 11-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Floods 2/25/1956 N/A
Floods 3/6/1957 N/A
Severe Storms 10/20/1962 N/A
Floods 3/2/1963 N/A
Heavy Rains & Flooding 12/29/1964 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 12/13/1975 N/A
Drought 3/31/1977 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 12/10/1977 N/A
Flooding 3/12/1979 N/A
Volcanic Eruption 5/21/1980 N/A
Severe Storms, Thunder 12/24/1980 N/A
Wind 11/14/1981 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding, Thunder, Wind 1/18/1986 N/A
Winter Weather 2/1/1989 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 11/26/1990 N/A
Severe Storms, Thunder 7/24/1991 N/A
Eastern Washington Fires 10/18/1991 N/A
Storms, High Winds, Floods 1/3/1996 N/A
Severe Storms, Flooding 2/9/1996 N/A
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding 1/17/1997 N/A
Earthquake 3/1/2001 N/A
Winter Weather 11/28/2001 N/A
Elk Heights Fire 7/30/2004 N/A
Flooding 5/4/2005 N/A
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation 9/7/2005 N/A
Winter Weather 12/14/2006 N/A
Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides and
Flooding
1/30/2009 N/A
CHAPTER 11. KITTITAS PUD #1 ANNEX
4
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Severe Winter Storm, Record Snow 3/2/2009 N/A
Severe Storm, Flooding, Landslides 3/25/2011 N/A
Freezing Fog and Frost Ryegrass 2013 N/A
Vantage, Taylor Bridge, Table Mountain Fires 2012, 2014 N/A
Table 11-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Severe Weather 54
2 Flood 51
3 Wildfire 36
3 Drought 36
4 Earthquake 24
5 Avalanche 18
5 Landslide 18
6 Dam Failure 16
6 Volcano / Lahar 16
7 Seiche 0
Table 11-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection No — —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 11. KITTITAS PUD #1 ANNEX
5
Table 11-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
KPUD-1—Acquire mobile generator to support critical infrastructure during times of disaster or service
interruptions.
New Severe Storm,
Flood,
Wildfire,
Landslide,
Avalanche
1,9,10 PUD Low District Funds,
HMGP
Immediate
Short-term
KPUD-2—Acquire right of way and relocate distribution structures and facilities out of areas subject to
repetitive loss or damage. (All Feeders on Parke, Ellensburg, Teanaway, Smithson, and Jenkins circuits)
New and
Existing
Severe Storm,
Flood,
Wildfire,
Landslide,
Avalanche
1,2,7,8,9,10 PUD High District Funds,
HMGP
Short-term
KPUD-3—Implement a contingency plan to establish a more hazard-resilient electrical system by networking
isolated distribution circuits (Feeder Ties S2 to T1, P3 to V1, R1 Alternate Source; Beverly Bridge)
New and
Existing
Severe Storm,
Flood,
Wildfire,
Landslide,
Avalanche
1,2,4,7,8,9,10 PUD Medium District Funds,
HMGP
Short-term
ongoing
(S3toJ1
complete)
KPUD-4—Implement a vegetation management program (manage all rights of way on a 3 year cycle)
Existing Severe Storm,
Wildfire
1,9,10 PUD Low District Funds,
HMGP
Short-term
ongoing
KPUD-5—Raise or mitigate substations in floodplain (Ellensburg Substation & Teanaway Substation)
Existing Severe Storm,
Flood,
Earthquake
1,7,8,10 PUD High District Funds,
HMGP
Long-term,
depends on
funding
KPUD-6—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in Volume 1
of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All PUD Low District Funds Short-term
ongoing
KPUD-7—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance, and updating of this plan, as
defined in Volume 1.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All PUD Low District Funds,
HMGP for 5-year
update
Short-term
ongoing
KPUD-8—Develop a curtailment and operations plan that describes maintaining operations following disasters
or required service outages.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 1, 9, 10 KPUD Low District Funds,
DHS Grant
funding
Long-term,
depends on
funding
CHAPTER 11. KITTITAS PUD #1 ANNEX
6
Table 11-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
1 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 6 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
3 7 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
4 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
5 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium
6 10 Low Low Yes No Yes High
7 10 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
8 3 Medium Low Yes Yes No Medium
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 11-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6.
Structural
Projects
Avalanche 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1 5, 6 1 1, 2, 7 —
Dam Failure 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1 5, 6 1 2, 7 —
Drought 2,5, 6, 7 — 5, 6 — 2, 7 —
Earthquake 2, 5, 6, 7 4 5, 6 — 2, 7 —
Flood 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1, 4 5, 6 1 1, 2, 7 —
Landslide 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1 5, 6 1 1, 2, 7 —
Severe Weather 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1, 3, 4 5, 6 1 1, 2, 7 —
Seiche — — — — — —
Volcano 2, 5, 6, 7 — 5, 6 — 2, 7 —
Wildfire 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1, 3 5, 6 1 1, 2, 7 —
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 5—
SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNEXES
1
Chapter 12.
Kittitas School District #403 Annex
12.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Bryan Nash, Maintenance Supervisor
601 N. Pierce Street
Kittitas, WA 98934
Telephone: 855.380.8844
Email: bryan_nash@ksd403.org
Rich Stewart, Superintendent
601 N. Pierce Street
Kittitas, WA 98934
Telephone: 855.380.8848
Email: rich_stewart@ksd403.org
12.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The Kittitas School District was formed in 1907. The Kittitas School District has two schools on two
campuses serving approximately 650 students with 85 employees. The District has a K-5 elementary school
and a 6-12 secondary school. The Kittitas School District is operated with local, state, and federal funds,
administered by a board of directors and superintendent. The Board will assume the responsibility for
adoption and implementation of this plan. The following is a summary of key information about the
jurisdiction:
– Population Served—Per the 2010 Census, the Kittitas School District has a population of
3,673 with 1,530 households.
– Land Area Served—603 square miles
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$76,261,530.
– Land Area Owned—68 acres.
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 10 School Buses $590,000
– 5 Pickups/Cars/Vans $66,000
– Equipment $2,327,046
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $2,983,046.
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– Primary Elementary $1,888,801
– Intermediate Elementary $4,300,941
– Portable Classroom $99,232
– Bus Shop $142,580
– Old High School $2,386,173
– Old High School Gym $1,155,000
– Old High School Annex $471,911
CHAPTER 12. KITTITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 ANNEX
2
– Green House $45,901
– Secondary Building/Grounds $15,435,000
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $25,923,539
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends—the Kittitas School District continues to
experience an increase in enrollment. The current head count is 630 students. Ten years ago,
the enrollment was 522. The District has the most affordable housing in the Kittitas Valley and
has attracted people who want to relocate from major population centers to purchase land.
12.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 12-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
12.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 12-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from earthquakes
and severe storms. The area has moderate risk from flooding, wildfire, and dam failure. There is low risk
from all other hazards.
12.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– Kittitas School District #403-Emergency Response Plan
12.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 12-3.
12.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 12-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 12-5 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table 12-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
CHAPTER 12. KITTITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 ANNEX
3
Table 12-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Landslide 10/11/2009 No Estimates Available
Flooding 1/9/2009 No Estimates Available
Avalanche 1/7/2009 No Estimates Available
Wind 1/29/2007 No Estimates Available
Wind 1/7/2007 No Estimates Available
Winter Weather 12/15/2006 No Estimates Available
Wind 6/21/2005 No Estimates Available
Flooding 5/4/2005 No Estimates Available
Wind 3/29/2005 No Estimates Available
Winter Weather 1/18/2005 No Estimates Available
Wildfire 7/26/2004 No Estimates Available
Wildfire 7/2/2004 No Estimates Available
Flooding 5/20/2004 No Estimates Available
Wind 4/27/2004 No Estimates Available
Avalanche 12/13/2003 No Estimates Available
Table 12-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Earthquake 54
2 Severe Weather 48
3 Flood 42
4 Dam Failure 18
4 Wildfire 18
5 Volcano 6
6 Drought 0
6 Landslide 0
6 Avalanche 0
6 Seiche 0
Table 12-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection No — —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
CHAPTER 12. KITTITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 ANNEX
4
Table 12-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
KSD #1—Remove football field light poles at former school. The poles have structurally weakened over time.
Existing Earthquake 1,4,9 District $14,750,
Medium
District Funds,
HMGP
Short Term
KSD # 2—Natural hazard event preparedness to run buildings during an outage and cut off from help.
Existing All Hazards 1,9,10 District Medium Capital/grant Short term
KSD #3—Develop a continuity of operations plan that looks at sustaining operations following disasters.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 1, 9, 10 District Medium District Funds,
DHS Grant
funding
Long-term,
depends on
funding
KSD #4—Partner with other local governments in educating citizens and students on the potential
consequences of natural hazards and how to prepare and respond to their impacts.
New and
Existing
All Hazards 2, 8, 9 District Low District General
Fund
Short-term
KSD #5—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in Volume 1 of
the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All District Low District Funds Short-term
ongoing
KSD #6—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance, and updating of this plan, as
defined in Volume 1.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All District Low District Funds,
HMGP for 5-year
update
Short-term
ongoing
Table 12-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
1 3 High Medium Yes No No Medium
2 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High
3 3 High Low Yes Yes No Medium
4 3 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
5 10 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
6 10 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
CHAPTER 12. KITTITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 ANNEX
5
Table 12-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche — — — — — —
Dam Failure 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
Drought — — — — — —
Earthquake 3, 5, 6 1 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
Flood 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
Landslide — — — — — —
Severe Weather 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
Seiche — — — — — —
Volcano 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
Wildfire 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 3, 5
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
1
Chapter 13.
Cle Elum – Roslyn School District #404 Annex
13.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Mark Soderstrom
2690 SR 903
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Telephone: 509-649-4853
Email: soderstromm@cersd.org
Becky Roberts
2690 SR 903
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Telephone: 509-649-4852
Email: robertsb@cersd.org
13.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The Cle Elum-Roslyn School District (District) has three schools and an administration building on one
campus. In addition to this campus, the District has an offsite learning center that houses alternative learning
and home-school connection. The District presently has 130 employees. The District operates with local,
state, and federal funding, administered by a board of directors and superintendent. The board of directors
will assume the responsibility for the adoption and implementation of this plan. The District’s customers
are the students who attend its schools.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served—- There are 897 students in the school district as of 2017.
– Land Area Served—600 square miles
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$2.3 billion
– Land Area Owned—49 acres
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– 15 School Buses
– 3 Light Trucks
– 3 Vans
– 2 Sport Utility Vehicles
– 5 Storage trailers
– Bleachers
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $1,700,000.
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– The High School, valued at $11,083,542
– Swiftwater Learning Center and new District office, valued at $1,200,000
– Elementary/Middle School, valued at $15,486,462
– Music building, valued at $2,600,000
CHAPTER 13. CLE ELUM – ROSLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT #404 ANNEX
2
– Tech office, valued at $271,031
– Tractor Shed, valued at $50,000
– Mechanic Shop/Storage, valued at $100,000
– Bus Garage, valued at $210,0000
– Concession Stand, valued at $100,000
– Ticket Booth, valued at $5,000
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $31,106,035.
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Based on a population of 1,755 in 2000 (US
census) and 2,580 in 2016 (American Community Survey), the City of Cle Elum has had a
growth rate of approximately 47 percent over 16 years (3 percent growth per year). The District
has seen an increase in population in the last 10 years without an increase in student population
due to the nature of the area being used as a second home/vacation area by a large part of the
new population. This trend will probably continue for the next 10 to 15 years.
The District’s boundaries are shown on Figure 16-1.
Figure 13-1. Cle Elum School District boundaries.
13.3. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 13-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
13.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 13-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from earthquakes,
with moderate risk from severe weather, flooding, wildfire. There is low risk from all other hazards.
13.5. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
CHAPTER 13. CLE ELUM – ROSLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT #404 ANNEX
3
– Cle Elum-Roslyn School District Emergency Procedure Plan
13.6. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 13-3.
13.7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Table 13-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table 13-5 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table 13-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
Table 13-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Preliminary Damage Assessment
Flooding 1/9/2009 N/A
Winter Weather 12/2008 $1,800
Winter Weather 12/15/2006 Operational
Drought 5/2005 N/A
Winter Weather 1/17/2005 N/A
Drought 5/2004 N/A
Drought 7/2001 N/A
Earthquake 2/28/2001 N/A
Winter Weather 1/14/1998 N/A
Winter Weather 12/27/1996 N/A
Winter Weather 1/6/1996 N/A
Winter Weather 2/18/1993 N/A
Winter Weather 12/8/1992 N/A
Winter Weather 12/29/1990 N/A
Winter Weather 2/1/1989 N/A
Winter Weather 12/2/1985 N/A
Winter Weather 1/2/1974 N/A
Winter Weather 1/24/1972 N/A
Winter Weather 12/30/1968 N/A
Table 13-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Earthquake 54
2 Wildfire 45
3 Severe Weather 42
4 Flood 42
5 Volcano 6
6 Avalanche 0
7 Dam Failure 0
8 Landslide 0
9 Drought 0
10 Seiche 0
CHAPTER 13. CLE ELUM – ROSLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT #404 ANNEX
4
Table 13-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection No — —
Storm Ready No — —
Firewise No — —
Table 13-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
CESD #1—Partner with Kittitas County, City of Cle Elum and City of Roslyn on emergency drills to better
prepare for the impacts of all hazards on the District.
New and
Existing
All 1,3,9 CERSD 6000, Low CERSD, County Ongoing
CESD #2—Participate in the Firewise program by deploying Firewise techniques around school properties
susceptible to wildfire hazards.
New Wildfire 1,8,10 CERSD 25,000, High Grant Money,
CERSD
Long term,
depends on
funding
CESD #3—Seek Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant support from competent sources such as WA Emergency
Management Division, FEMA or a contractor
New and
Existing
All 1,5,6,7,8,9,10 CERSD 5000,
Medium
Hazard mitigation
assistance grant
Long-term,
depends on
funding
CESD #4—Continue to support through active participation the countywide initiatives identified in Volume 1
of the Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All District Low District Funds Short-term
ongoing
CESD #5—Continue to support the implementation, monitoring, maintenance, and updating of the Kittitas
County Hazard Mitigation Plan, as defined in Volume 1.
New and
Existing
All Hazards All District Low District Funds,
HMGP for 5-year
update
Short-term
ongoing
CHAPTER 13. CLE ELUM – ROSLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT #404 ANNEX
5
Table 13-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
1 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 3 High High Yes Yes Yes High
3 8 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
4 10 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
5 10 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 13-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6.
Structural
Projects
Avalanche 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Dam Failure 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Drought 4, 5 3 — — — 3
Earthquake 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Flood 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Landslide 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Severe Weather 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Seiche 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Volcano 1, 4, 5 3 — — 1 3
Wildfire 1, 4, 5 2, 3 — — 1 3
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
1
Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
PART 6—
CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEXES
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
2
Chapter 14. Kittitas County Conservation District Annex
14.1. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact:
Anna Lael, District Manager
2211 W Dolarway Rd Ste #4
Ellensburg WA 98926
Telephone: 509-925-3352
Email: a-lael@conservewa.net
Alternate Point of Contact:
Rose Shriner, Project Manager
2211 W Dolarway Rd Ste #4
Ellensburg WA 98926
Telephone: 509-925-3352
Email: rose-shriner@conservewa.net
14.2. JURISDICTION PROFILE
The Kittitas Conservation District was created in 1942, followed by the Cle Elum Conservation District in
1948, as part of a national response to the Dust Bowl. The two districts combined in the 1960's to create
the Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD). The KCCD has worked for 75 years to assist local land
managers to address the many challenges to long term sustainability. The KCCD serves the citizens of its
community (county, state, country) to ensure the long term use of natural resources in an economically,
socially, and environmentally sustainable manner using non-regulatory, voluntary approaches.
The KCCD is primarily grant funded and averages approximately 20 open grants at any time. The grants
are secured predominantly from state and federal sources such as the Washington State Conservation
Commission, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology, Salmon Recovery Funding
Board, Bonneville Power Administration, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Over
the last seven years, the state and federal grants have accounted for 94% of the revenue received. The
remaining revenue is from local and private sources, including the Special Assessment, Kittitas County
Public Works and private organizations (e.g. Puget Sound Energy). The Special Assessment funding is used
to secure many of the state and federal grants, so although the local funds are a small part of the overall
revenue, they are critical to obtaining those grants.
Kittitas County Conservation District and other conservation districts are the ONLY organizations in
Washington State that routinely design and apply on-the-ground solutions to nonpoint water quality
problems on privately owned resource lands. Further, the technical help provided by conservation districts
to private landowners is free for the asking. Each conservation district is led by a five -member board of
volunteer supervisors - three elected locally and two appointed by the state's conservation agency, the
Conservation Commission. These individuals serve three-year terms, during which time they remain aware
of locally important natural resource or environmental issues and decide what projects their district will
undertake each year. Also, Kittitas County Conservation District has seven paid staff that work to
implement the annual and long range plans of the board of supervisors each managing several natural
resource concerns ranging from agriculture, water quality, soil erosion, botany, forestry and wildfire. The
Kittitas County Conservation District serves unincorporated Kittitas County and the cities of Cle Elum and
Roslyn (about 20,828 population).
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served - 20,828
– Land Area Served - 2,333 square miles
– Value of Area Served - $5,725,414,660
– Land Area Owned - N/A
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
3
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction - N/A
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment - N/A
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction - N/A
– Total Value of Critical Facilities - N/A
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends - Kittitas County population is expected to increase
by an average annual growth rate of 1.08% annually (Kittitas County Population Projection
Review and Analysis, 2016). Proposed population growth scenarios expects with current trends
for the population growth from 2015-2037 to increase by 21,738. In 2037 population is
expected to be at 64,408 (Kittitas County Population Projection Review and Analysis, 2016).
With the increase population, natural resource issues such as flooding, wildfire and other
concerns will put more residences and private properties at risk.
Figure 14-1. Kittitas County Conservation District Boundaries
14.3. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT NATURAL
HAZARD HISTORY
Table 14-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards in the KCCD. Repetitive loss records are as follows:
– Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 0
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
4
14.4. HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 14-2 summarizes the ranking of the hazards of concern. The jurisdiction is most at risk from wildfire,
earthquake, and severe storms. Drought, flooding, avalanche, and landslide present moderate risk, and
there is low risk from all other hazards.
14.5. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 14-3.
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 14-4. Classifications under
various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 14-5.
14.6. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Kittitas County Conservation District understands the basic federal grant program criteria which will drive
the identification, selection, and funding of the most competitive and worthy mitigation projects. FEMA’s
grant programs (the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance, and Pre-Disaster
Mitigation program) that offer federal mitigation funding to state and local governments all include the
benefit-cost and repetitive loss selection criteria. The prioritization of new projects and deletion of
completed projects will occur annually and be facilitated by the Kittitas County Emergency Manager and
the joint planning committee. All mitigation activities, recommendations, and action items mentioned in
this document are dependent on available funding and staffing.
14.7. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
RISK/VULNERABILITY
No future needs identified.
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
5
Table 14-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Wildfire (Ryegrass Coulee) FM-5253 7/10/2018 $3 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Jolly Mountain) FM-5200 7/2/2017-
7/22/2017
$55Million Dollars
Drought N/A 2015
Wildfire (Snag Canyon) FM-5071 8/2/2014 $14 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Saddle Mountain) FM-5064 7/18/2014
Wildfire (Colockum Tarps) FM-5038 7/29/2013 $7.6 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Table Mountain) FM-5020 9/19/2012 $3.2 Million Dollars
Wildfire (Taylor Bridge) FM-5005 8/13/2012 $59.8 Million Dollars
Severe Winter Storm, Flooding, Landslides
and Mudslides
DR-1963 3/25/2011
Severe Winter Storm and Record Near
Record Snow
DR-1825 3/2/2009
Severe Winter Storm, Landslides,
Mudslides and Flooding
DR-1817 1/30/2009
Drought N/A 2005
Drought N/A 2001
Earthquake (Nisqually) DR-1361 3/1/2001
Severe Winter Storms/Flooding DR-1159 1/17/1997
Severe Storms/Flooding DR-1100 2/2/1996
Storms/High Winds/Floods DR-1079 1/3/1996
Flooding, Severe Storm DR-883 11/26/1990
Volcanic Eruption, Mt St. Helens DR-623 5/21/1980
Severe Storms, Mudslides, Flooding DR-545 12/10/1977
Severe Storms, Flooding DR-492 12/13/1975
Table 14-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1 Wildfire 27
2 Earthquake 27
3 Severe Weather 27
4 Drought 18
5 Flood 18
6 Avalanche 9
7 Landslide 9
8 Dam Failure 3
9 Volcano 3
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
6
Table 14-3. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices Y
Kittitas County Conservation District/ District
Manager, Engineer, Resource Tech, Project
Managers
Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices Y Kittitas County Conservation District/ District
Engineer
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards Y
Kittitas County Conservation District/ District
Manager, Engineer, Resource Tech, Project
Managers
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Y Kittitas County Conservation District/
Conservation Planners/ Project Managers
Floodplain manager N
Surveyors N
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y Kittitas County Conservation District/ GIS
Specialist
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area N
Emergency manager N
Grant writers Y Kittitas County Conservation District /
District Manager / Project Managers
Table 14-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants N
Capital Improvements Project Funding N
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes N
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service N
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds N
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds N
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds N
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas N
State Sponsored Grant Programs Y
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers N
Other Y
Table 14-5. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No NA N/A
Building Code Effectiveness and Grading Schedule Yes 3/3
Public Protection Yes 6/9
Storm Ready No NA N/A
Firewise USA Yes High 2018
Voluntary Stewardship Plan Yes High 2018
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
7
Table 14-6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative # KCCD- 01—Continue to develop and implement public education programs which increase
public awareness of the risks associated with hazards/disasters and emergency preparedness.
Existing All 6 KCCD Staff High KCCD public
education programs
Ongoing
Initiative # KCCD-02— Pre and post disaster technical, educational and financial assistance to private
landowners including conducting damage assessments, recommending practices to address erosion risk
(seeding, mulching, culvert replacements, etc.), encouraging residents to participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program, and seeking funding to implement actions to reduce risk and protect homes
and infrastructure.
Existing Flood, Dam
Failure,
Wildfire
1, 2, 6,
8, 10
KCCD Staff High KCCD led an
interagency BAER
team in 2012 fires
Ongoing
Initiative # KCCD-03— Track conditions of and implement projects with private landowners
conducting agricultural practices in frequently flooded areas, floodplains, and geologic hazard areas
that improve resource conditions and maintain the viability of agriculture.
New Drought,
Flood,
Landslide
3, 6, 9,
10
KCCD
Staff
Medium Voluntary
Stewardship
Program
Ongoing
Initiative # KCCD-04— Conduct individual property and community-wide wildfire risk assessments
and evaluate potential mitigation projects.
Current Wildfire 1, 6, 7 KCCD Staff High KCCD experience
with Firewise USA
communities and
individual risk
assessments
Ongoing
Initiative # KCCD-05— Continue to work on actions items and proposed projects in the Kittitas County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan including implementation of landscape scale restoration and partnering
with stakeholders through the Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition (KFACC).
Existing Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 10
KCCD
Staff
Medium CWPP, KFACC Ongoing
Initiative # KCCD-06— Implement projects and conduct outreach and education for landowners to improve
water use efficiencies and resiliency in drought conditions including drought resistant landscapes, reducing
water system losses, and identifying alternate water supply options.
New Drought 1, 6, 10 KCCD
Staff
High Yakima Basin
Integrated Water
Resources
Management Plan
Ongoing
CHAPTER 14. KITTITAS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
8
Table 14-7. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative #
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant
Eligible?
Can Project be
Funded Under
Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
KCCD-01 1 High Medium Yes Yes No High
KCCD-02 5 High High Yes Yes No High
KCCD-03 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
KCCD-04 3 Medium High Yes Yes No Medium
KCCD-05 7 High Medium Yes Yes No High
KCCD-06 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No High
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
Table 14-8. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Avalanche 1
Dam Failure 2 1, 2 2
Drought 3 1, 3, 6 3
Earthquake 1
Flood 2, 3 1, 2, 3 3 2
Landslide 3 1, 3 3
Severe Weather 1
Seiche 1
Volcano 1
Wildfire 5 2, 4, 5 1, 2, 4, 5 5 2, 4
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
APPENDIX A.
PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
A-1
APPENDIX A.
PLANNING PARTNER EXTECTATIONS
Achieving DMA Compliance for All Planning Partners
One of the goals of the multi-jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve compliance
with the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for all participating members in the planning effort. DMA
compliance must be certified for each member in order to maintain eligibility for the benefits under the
DMA. Whether our planning process generates ten individual plans or one large plan that has a chapter for
each partner jurisdiction, the following items must be addressed by each planning partner to achieve DMA
compliance:
Participate in the process. It must be documented in the plan that each planning partner
“participated” in the process that generated the plan. There is flexibility in defining “participation”.
Participation can vary based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City or County, vs. a Special
Purpose District). However, the level of participation must be defined and the extent for which this
level of participation has been met for each partner must be contained in the plan context.
Consistency Review. Review of existing documents pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify
policies or recommendations that are not consistent with those documents reviewed in producing
the “parent” plan or have policies and recommendations that complement the hazard mitigation
initiatives selected (i.e.: comp plans, basin plans or hazard specific plans).
Action Review. For Plan updates, a review of the strategies from your prior action plan to
determine those that have been accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those that
have not been accomplished were not completed.
Update Localized Risk Assessment. Personalize the Risk Assessment for each jurisdiction by
removing hazards not associated with the defined jurisdictional area or redefining vulnerability
based on a hazard’s impact to a jurisdiction. This phase will include:
A ranking of the risk
A description of the number and type of structures at risk
An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
A general description of land uses and development trends within the community, so that
mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Capability assessment. Each planning partner must identify and review their individual
regulatory, technical and financial capabilities with regards to the implementation of hazard
mitigation actions.
Personalize mitigation recommendations. Identify and prioritize mitigation recommendations
specific to the each jurisdiction’s defined area.
Create an Action Plan.
Incorporate Public Participation. Each jurisdiction must present the Plan to the public for
comment at least once, within two weeks prior to adoption.
A-2
Plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction.
One of the benefits to multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means more than
monetary resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media resources, technical expertise
will all need to be utilized to generate a successful plan. In addition, these resources can be pooled such
that decisions can be made by a peer group applying to the whole and thus reducing the individual level of
effort of each planning partner. This will be accomplished by the formation of a st eering committee made
up of planning partners and other “stakeholders” within the planning area. The size and makeup of this
steering committee will be determined by the planning partnership. This body will assume the decision
making responsibilities on behalf of the entire partnership. This will streamline the planning process by
reducing the number of meetings that will need to be attended by each planning partner. The assembled
Steering Committee for this effort will meet monthly on an as needed basis as determined by the planning
team, and will provide guidance and decision making during all phases of the plan’s development.
With the above participation requirements in mind, each partner is expected to aid this process by being
prepared to develop its section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this effort, each Planning
Partner shall provide the following:
A. A “Letter of Intent to participate” or Resolution to participate to the Planning Team (see exhibit
A).
B. Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard mitigation
point of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan.
C. Support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee selected to oversee
the development of this plan.
D. Provide support in the form of mailing list, possible meeting space, and public information
materials, such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures, required to implement the
public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee.
E. Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to participate.
Opportunities such as:
a. Steering Committee meetings
b. Public meetings or open houses
c. Workshops/ Planning Partner specific training sessions
d. Public review and comment periods prior to adoption
At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance records will be
used to document participation for each planning partner. No thresholds will be established as minimum
levels of participation. However, each planning partner should attempt to attend all possible meetings
and events.
F. There will be one mandatory workshop that all planning partners will be required to attend. This
workshop will cover the proper completion of the jurisdictional annex template which is the basis
for each partner’s jurisdictional chapter in the plan. Failure to have a representative at this workshop
will disqualify the planning partner from participation in this effort. The schedule for this workshop
will be such that all committed planning partners will be able to attend.
A-3
G. After participation in the mandatory template workshop, each partner will be required to complete
their template and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established by the Steerin g
Committee. Failure to complete your template in the required time frame may lead to
disqualification from the partnership.
H. Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans,
ordinances specific to hazards to determine the existence of any not consistent with the same such
documents reviewed in the preparation of the County (parent) Plan. For example, if your
community has a floodplain management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent
with any of the County’s Basin Plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation
into the plan for your area.
I. Each partner will be expected to review the Risk Assessment and identify hazards and
vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide the jurisdiction specific
mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and vulnerability
will be up to each partner.
J. Each partner will be expected to review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen
in the parent plan will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent
with the parent plan recommendations will need to be identified and prioritized, and reviewed to
determine their benefits vs. costs.
K. Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will
oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.
L. Each partner will be required to sponsor at least one public meeting to present the draft plan to its
constituents at least 2 weeks prior to adoption.
M. Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
Templates and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all committed
planning partners. Each partner will be expected to complete their templates in a timely manner and
according to the timeline specified by the Steering Committee.
** Note**: Once this plan is completed, and DMA compliance has been determined for each partner,
maintaining that eligibility will be dependent upon each partner implementing the plan
implementation-maintenance protocol identified in the plan. At a minimum, this means completing
the on-going plan maintenance protocol identified in the plan. Partners that do not participate in this
plan maintenance strategy may be deemed ineligible by the partnership, and thus lose their DMA
eligibility.
A-4
Template Letter of Intent
[Date]
Mr. Mark Cook
Public Works Director
Kittitas County Public Works
411 North Ruby Street, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Subject: Kittitas County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Authorization and Letter
of Intent to Participate – [Jurisdiction Name]
Dear Mr. Cook:
[Jurisdiction Name] is committed to participating in the Kittitas County (County) Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan)
Update project. By way of this letter, [Jurisdiction Name]:
1. Authorizes the County and the County Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee (Steering Committee) to guide
and direct this planning process, perform certain parts of the planning process, and prepare certain parts of the
plan documents on our behalf.
2. Agrees to meet the minimum requirements of jurisdictional participation (a.k.a., the Planning Partner
Expectations), specifically:
Execute and return this “Authorization and Acknowledgement” letter to the Kittitas County Department
of Public Works, attention: Mark Cook.
Identify jurisdictional representatives to serve as the planning points of contact (POCs), below. These
people will be responsible for representing our community and assuring that these participation
expectations are met.
Support the Steering Committee selected to oversee the development of this plan.
Provide representation at Steering Committee meetings.
Provide information about the assets (structures and facilities, new development, etc.) within our
jurisdiction as requested by the County, Steering Committee, or the contract consultant.
Assist with the identification of stakeholders within our community that should be informed and
potentially involved with the planning process.
Review draft Plan sections when requested and provide comment and input as appropriate.
Prepare (or update) and submit a Jurisdictional Annex to the County Steering Committee and/or the
contract consultant. Templates and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be
provided to all participating partners. Each partner will be expected to complete their templates in a
timely manner and according to the timeline specified by the Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee and/or the contract consultant will assure that technical and administrative
resources are available to assist with the preparation and completion of the Jurisdictional Annexes.
Identify at least one mitigation initiative (action, project, or program) that our community will
implement in order to reduce their risk from each high-ranked natural hazard. These initiatives will be
presented in our Jurisdictional Annex.
Involve our local National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Administrator in the planning process.
A-5
Adopt the Plan by resolution of their governing body after Federal Emergency Management Agency
conditional approval.
Annually, provide information on progress on identified initiatives as requested by the County Hazard
Mitigation Coordinator.
3. Has assigned the following person(s) to be the POCs for our jurisdiction. We understand that these POCs are
responsible for assuring municipal representation at Steering Committee meetings, and assuring that the other
minimum requirements of jurisdictional participation, as detailed in the Planning Partner Expectations above,
are met.
(Other jurisdictional representatives that should be actively involved in the development of this Plan include
persons from DPW, planning and zoning, construction and engineering, and emergency management.)
[Jurisdiction Name] Primary Hazard Mitigation Planning (HMP) Point of Contact is:
Name of HMP POC: Position/Department:
Phone Number: Email Address:
[Jurisdiction Name] Secondary Hazard Mitigation Planning Point of Contact is:
Name of HMP POC: Position/Department:
Phone Number: Email Address:
[Jurisdiction Name] designated local Floodplain Administrator (FPA) under the NFIP (if applicable) is:
Name of NFIP FPA: Position/Department:
Phone Number: Email Address:
Thank You.
Sincerely,
[POC]
[Title, Jurisdiction Name]
c: Karen Hodges, Kittitas County
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
APPENDIX B.
PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO
THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
B-1
APPENDIX B.
PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO
THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Not all eligible local governments within Kittitas County are included in the Kittitas County Hazard
Mitigation Plan. It is assumed that some or all of these non-participating local governments may choose to
“link” to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act.
In addition, some of the current partnership may not continue to meet eligibility requirements due to a lack
of participation as prescribed by the plan. The following “linkage” procedures define the requirements
established by the Plan’s Steering Committee and all planning partners for dealing with an increase or
decrease in the number of planning partners linked to this plan. It should be note d that a currently non-
participating jurisdiction within the defined planning area is not obligated to link to this plan. These
jurisdictions can chose to do their own “complete” plan that addresses all required elements of section 201.6
of 44 CFR.
Increasing the Partnership through Linkage
The annual time period for the linkage process will be from ______ to ______ during any year. Eligible
linking jurisdictions are instructed to complete all of the following procedures during this time frame:
– The eligible jurisdiction requests a “Linkage Package” by contacting the Point of Contact
(POC) for the plan:
Karen Hodges
Department of Public Works
411 N Ruby Street, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Telephone: 509-962-7523
Email: karen.hodges@co.kittitas.wa.us
The POC will provide a linkage package that includes:
– Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan
– Planning partner’s expectations package.
– A sample “letter of intent” to link to the hazard mitigation plan.
– A Special Purpose District or City template and instructions.
– Catalog of Hazard Mitigation Alternatives
– A “request for technical assistance” form.
– A copy of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44, the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), which
defines the federal requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan.
– The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the hazard mitigation plan,
which includes the following key components for the planning area:
– The planning area risk assessment
– Goals and objectives
B-2
– Plan implementation and maintenance procedures
– Comprehensive review of alternatives
– County-wide initiatives.
Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the
template and instructions provided by the POC. Technical assistance can be provided upon
request by completing the request for technical assistance form provided in the linkage
package. Technical assistance may be provided by the POC or any other resource within the
Planning Partnership such as a member of the Steering Committee or a currently participating
City or Special Purposes District partner. The POC will determine who will provide the
technical assistance and the possible level of assistance, based on resources available at the
time of the request.
– The new jurisdiction will be required to develop a public involvement strategy that ensures the
public’s ability to participate in the plan development process. At a minimum, the new
jurisdiction must make an attempt to solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset of
this linkage process and a minimum of one public meeting to present their draft jurisdiction
specific annex for comment, prior to adoption by the governing body. The Planning Partnership
will have resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy such as the Plan website.
However, it will be the new jurisdiction’s responsibility to implement and document this
strategy for incorporation into its annex. It should be noted that the jurisdictional annex
templates do not include a section for the description of the public process. This is because the
original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy that covered the
planning area described in Volume 1 of the plan. Since new partners were not addressed by
that strategy, they will have to initiate a new strategy, and add a description of that strategy to
their annex. For consistency, new partners are encouraged to follow the public involvement
format utilized by the initial planning effort as described in Volume 1 of the plan.
– Once their public involvement strategy is completed and they have completed their template,
the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to the POC for a pre-adoption review
to ensure conformance with the Regional plan format.
– The POC will review for the following:
– Documentation of public involvement strategy
– Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions
– Chosen initiatives are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of the hazard
mitigation plan
– A designated point of contact
– A ranking of risk specific to the jurisdiction.
The POC may utilize members of the Steering Committee or other resources to complete this
review. All proposed linked annexes will be submitted to the Steering Committee for review
and comment prior to submittal to WA Emergency Management Division.
– Plans approved and accepted by the Steering Committee will be forwarded to WA Emergency
Management Division for review with a cover letter stating the forwarded plan meets local
approved plan standards and whether the plan is submitted with local adoption or for criteria
met/plan not adopted review.
B-3
– WA Emergency Management Division will review plans for federal compliance. Non-
Compliant plans are returned to the Lead agency for correction. Compliant plans are forwarded
to FEMA for review with annotation as to the adoption status.
– FEMA reviews the new jurisdiction’s plan in association with the approved plan to ensure
DMA compliance. FEMA notifies new jurisdiction of results of review with copies to WA
Emergency Management Division and approved planning authority.
– New jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to WA Emergency
Management Division through the approved plan lead agency.
– For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new
jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan (if not already accomplished) and forwards
adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead agency and WA Emergency Management
Division.
– FEMA regional director notifies new jurisdiction governing authority of plan approval.
The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the regional plan with the commitment from the new
jurisdiction to participate in the ongoing plan implementation and maintenance.
Decreasing the Partnership
The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First,
a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the
partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can
gain eligibility. A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire
in writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wi shing to pursue
this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of
being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act.
After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both WA Emergency Management
Division and FEMA in writing that the partner in question is no longer covered by the hazard mitigation
plan, and that the eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this
notification.
The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation
requirements specified in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided to each partner at the
beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified in Volume 1
of the plan. Each partner agreed to these terms by adopting the plan.
Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether
a partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters:
– Are progress reports being submitted annually by the specified time frames?
– Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact?
– Are the partners supporting the Steering Committee by attending designated meetings or
responding to needs identified by the body?
– Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners expectations
package provided to them at the beginning of the process?
Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that
a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the
planning area. Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following
procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of participation:
B-4
– The POC will advise the Steering Committee of this pending action and provide evidence or
justification for the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual
progress reports, failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Steering
Committee, failure to act on the partner’s action plan, or inability to reach designated point of
contact after a minimum of five attempts.
– The Steering Committee will review information provided by POC, and determine action by a
vote. The Steering Committee will invoke the voting process established in the ground rules
established during the formation of this body.
– Once the Steering Committee has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner
of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for
the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall
also clearly identify the ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be
given 30 days to respond to the notification.
– Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the
notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above.
– Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership,
they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies i dentified by the POC.
This action plan shall be reviewed by the Steering Committee to determine whether the actions
are appropriate to rescind the action. Those partners that satisfy the Steering Committee ’s
review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required.
– Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions
have to be initiated more than once in a 5 year planning cycle.
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
APPENDIX C.
JURISDICTIONAL ANNEX INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE
FOR MUNICIPALITIES
C-1
APPENDIX C.
JURISDICTION ANNEX INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE FOR
MUNICIPALITIES
C-2
Instructions for Completing
Municipality Annex Template
This document provides instructions for completing the annex template for city and county governments
participating in multi-partner hazard mitigation planning. Assistance in completing the template will be
available in the form of a workshop for all planning partners or one -on-one visits with each partner,
depending on funding availability. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to:
Jessica Fleck
Dewberry
8401 Arlington Blvd.
Fairfax, VA 22031
(703)849-0166
Email: jfleck@dewberry.com
Please provide a digital copy of the completed template to Dewberry upon completion.
Chapter Number and Title
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (The City of
Metropolis, Jefferson County, etc.). At this time, also change the name in the “header” box on Page 3, using
the same wording.
Note that the template is set up as Chapter “X.” Please leave all references to “X” in the template as they
are. Once all templates are received, chapter numbering will be assigned for incorporation into the final
plan.
Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact
Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point
of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and
updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your
jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact sh ould the primary
point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.
C-3
Jurisdiction Profile
Provide information specific to your
jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the
example provided in the box at right. This
should be information that was not provided in
the overall mitigation plan document. For
population data, use the most current
population figure for your jurisdiction based on
an official means of tracking (e.g., the U.S.
Census or state office of financial
management).
Jurisdiction-Specific Natural
Hazard Event History
Chronological List of Hazard Events
In Table X-1, list in chronological order (most
recent first) any natural hazard event that has
caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975.
Include the date of the event and the estimated
dollar amount of damage it caused. Please refer
to the summary of natural hazard events within
risk assessment of the overall hazard mitigation
plan. Potential sources of damage information
include:
– Preliminary damage estimates your
jurisdiction filed with the county or
state
– Insurance claims data
– Newspaper archives
– Other plans/documents that deal with
emergency management (safety
element of a comprehensive plan,
emergency response plan, etc.)
– Citizen input.
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is any property for
which FEMA has paid two or more flood
insurance claims in excess of $1,000 in any
rolling 10-year period since 1978. In the space
provided in the text for Section X.3, indicate the
number of any FEMA-identified Repetitive
Flood Loss properties in your jurisdiction (your
technical assistance provider will be able to
help you confirm this information). If you have
none, indicate “none” in the space provided.
Example Jurisdiction Profile:
– Date of Incorporation—1858
– Current Population—17,289 as of July 2006
– Population Growth—Based on the data tracked by the
California Department of Finance, Arcata has experienced a
relatively flat rate of growth. The overall population has
increased only 3.4% since 2000 and has averaged 0.74% per year
from 1990 to 2007
– Location and Description—The City of Arcata is located on
California’s redwood coast, approximately 760 miles north of
Los Angeles and 275 miles north of San Francisco. The nearest
seaport is Eureka, five miles south on Humboldt Bay. Arcata is
the home of Humboldt State University and is situated between
the communities of McKinleyville to the north and Blue Lake to
the east. It sits at the intersection of US Highway 101 and State
Route 299.
– Brief History—The Arcata area was settled during the California
gold rush in the 1850s as a supply center for miners. As the gold
rush died down, timber and fishing became the area’s major
economic resource. Arcata was incorporated in 1858 and by 1913
the Humboldt Teachers College, a predecessor to today’s
Humboldt State University was founded in Arcata. Recently, the
presence of the college has come to shape Arcata’s population
into a young, liberal, and educated crowd. In 1981 Arcata
developed the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary, an
innovative environmentally friendly, sewage treatment
enhancement system.
– Climate—Arcata’s weather is typical of the Northern California
coast, with mild summers and cool, wet winters. It rarely freezes
in the winter and it is rarely hot in the summer. Annual average
rainfall is over 40 inches, with 80% of that falling in the six-
month period of November through April. The average year-
round temperature is 59ºF. Humidity averages between 72 and 87
percent. Prevailing winds are from the north, and average 5 mph.
– Governing Body Format—The City of Arcata is governed by a
five-member City Council. The City consists of six departments:
Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development,
Public Works, Police and the City Manager’s Office. The City
has 13 Committees, Commissions and Task Forces, which report
to the City Council.
– Development Trends—Anticipated development levels for
Arcata are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential
development. The majority of recent development has been infill.
Residentially, there has been a focus on affordable housing and a
push for more secondary mother-in-law units on properties.
– The City of Arcata adopted its general plan in July 2000. The plan
focuses on issues of the greatest concern to the community. City
actions, such as those relating to land use allocations,
annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review,
redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent
with such a plan. Future growth and development in the City will
be managed as identified in the general plan.
C-4
Next, indicate the number (if any) of repetitive loss structures in your jurisdiction that have been mitigated.
Mitigated for this exercise means that flood protection has been provided to the structure. If you do not
know the answer to this question, the planning team will provide it for you.
Hazard Risk Ranking
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the
overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and
vulnerability and therefore needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the
overall planning area. The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of
occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy. A detailed discussion of the
concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions
below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction to develop results that are to be included in the
template.
Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability
of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows:
– High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
– Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
– Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
– None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability
Factor = 0)
Table 1. Hazard Probability of Occurrence
Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor
The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For
example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of
occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no
damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores
a 1 under this category.
Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and
impacts on the economy. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was
assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor o f 2 and impact on
the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below.
C-5
Impacts on People
To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed
to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation
assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard
zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each
hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows:
– High Impact—50% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
– Medium Impact—25% to 49% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
– Low Impact—25% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
– No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Table 2. Hazard Impact on People
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3)
Impacts on Property
To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value
exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to exposed structures,
taken from the “Summary of Loss” matrix provided with these instructions.
Table 3. Cost Estimates for Potential Damage to Structures
Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction-
Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard
C-6
In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact
factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows:
– High Impact—30% or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact
Factor = 3)
– Medium Impact—15% to 29% of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard
(Impact Factor = 2)
– Low Impact—14% or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact
Factor = 1)
– No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor =
0)
Table 4. Hazard Impact on Property
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2)
Impacts on the Economy
To assess impacts on the economy, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value
vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in
comparison to the total assessed value of property in the county. For some hazards, such as wildland fire,
landslide and severe weather, vulnerability is the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools
specific to those hazards. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the economy in your
jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows:
– High Impact—Estimated loss from the hazard is 20% or more of the total assessed property
value (Impact Factor = 3)
– Medium Impact—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10% to 19% of the total assessed property
value (Impact Factor = 2)
– Low Impact—Estimated loss from the hazard is 8% or less of the total assessed property value
(Impact Factor = 1)
– No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
C-7
Table 5. Hazard Impact on Operations
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1)
Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the
weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy:
– Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy}
Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each
hazard of concern.
Table 6. Hazard Risk Rating
Hazard Type Probability
Factor (P)
Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on
People, Property & Operations (I)
Risk Rating
(P x I)
Complete Risk Ranking in Template
Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table X-2 in your template. The hazard with the highest
risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table X -2 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the
second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk
ratings should be given the same rank.
It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based
on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise
generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter
the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of
the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization
of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard
you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena.
C-8
Capability Assessment
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Describe the legal authorities available to your jurisdiction and/or enabling legislation at the state level
affecting planning and land management tools that can support hazard mitigation initiatives. In Table X -3,
indicate “Yes” or “No” for each listed code, ordinance, requirement or planning document in each of the
following columns:
– Local Authority—Enter “Yes” if your jurisdiction has prepared or adopted the identified item;
otherwise, enter “No.” If yes, then enter the code or ordinance number and its date of adoption
in the comments column.
– State or Federal Prohibitions—Enter “Yes” if there are any state or federal regulations or laws
that would prohibit local implementation of the identified item; otherwise, enter “No.”
– Other Regulatory Authority—Enter “Yes” if there are any regulations that may impact your
initiative that are enforced or administered by another agency (e.g., a state agency or special
purpose district); otherwise, enter “No.”
– State Mandated—Enter “Yes” if state laws or other requirements enable or require the listed
item to be implemented at the local level; otherwise, enter “No.”
Administrative and Technical Capability
This section requires you to take inventory of the staff/personnel resources available to your jurisdiction to
help with hazard mitigation planning and implementation of specific mitigation actions.
Complete Table X-4 by indicating whether your jurisdiction has access to each of the listed personnel
resources. Enter “Yes” or “No” in the column labeled “Available?”. If yes, then enter the department and
position title in the right-hand column.
Financial Resources
Identify what financial resources (other than the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Grant Program) are available to your jurisdiction for implementing mitigation initiatives.
Complete Table X-5 by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is accessible to your
jurisdiction. Enter “Yes” if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “No” if there are
limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your eligibility for this resource.
Community Mitigation Related Classifications
Complete Table X-6 to indicate your jurisdiction’s participation in various national programs related to
natural hazard mitigation. For each program enter “Yes” or “No” in the second column to indicate whether
your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction has earned under the
program in the third column and the date on which that classification was issued in the fourth column; enter
“N/A” in these columns if your jurisdiction is not participating.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Action Plan Matrix
Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog
for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection
of initiatives:
C-9
– Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of
the hazard mitigation plan.
– Identify projects where benefits exceed costs.
– Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant
eligibility.
– Know what is and is not grant-eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided).
Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag
when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant
eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs
sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section.
– Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard -
specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related
project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not
discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility.
Complete Table X-7 for all the initiatives you have identified:
– Enter the initiative number and description.
– Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for
new or existing assets.
– Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate.
– Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that
the initiative addresses. These have been provided in
the Steering Committee meeting minutes that were
forwarded to you in the past.
– Indicate who will be the lead in administering the
project. This will most likely be your governing body.
– Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant,
include the funding sources for the cost share. Refer to
your fiscal capability assessment (Table X-5) to
identify possible sources of funding.
– Indicate the time line as “short term” (1 to 5 years) or
“long term” (5 years or greater).
Technical assistance will be available to your jurisdiction in
completing this section during the technical assistance visit.
Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives
Complete the information in Table X-8 as follows:
– Initiative #—Indicate the initiative number from Table X-7.
– # of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet.
– Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property.
Wording Your Initiative Descriptions:
Descriptions of your initiatives need not
provide great detail. That will come when
you apply for a project grant. Provide
enough information to identify the
project’s scope and impact. The following
are typical descriptions for an action plan
initiative:
Initiative 1—Address Repetitive
Loss properties. Through targeted
mitigation, acquire, relocate or
retrofit the five repetitive loss
structures in the County as funding
opportunities become available.
Initiative 2—Perform a non-
structural, seismic retrofit of City
Hall.
Initiative 3—Acquire floodplain
property in the Smith subdivision.
Initiative 4—Enhance the County
flood warning capability by joining
the NOAA “Storm Ready” program.
C-10
– Medium: Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
– Low: Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.
– Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants,
fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of
the proposed project.
– Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment
of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread
over multiple years.
– Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing
ongoing program.
If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program,
indicate the amount.
– Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter
“Yes” if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating
(high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No”
if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium
cost; etc.)
– Is the Project Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and
PDM.
– Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other
words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization
or funding from another source such as grants?
– Priority—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under
existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e.,
short term project) once funded.
– Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special
funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project
can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded.
– Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been
secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10
years).
This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the
primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the det ailed benefit/cost analysis required for
HMGP/PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not
exceed the probable costs.
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete Table X-9 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six
mitigation types:
C-11
– Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and
buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws,
capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management
regulations.
– Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or
removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural
retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
– Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about
hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard
information centers, and school-age and adult education.
– Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the
functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
– Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after
a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of
essential facilities.
– Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of
a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.
Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better
understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on
federal or state agency mandates such as EPA’s Bio-terrorism assessment requirement for water districts.
Additional Comments
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not
covered in this template.
C-12
Municipality Annex Template
Chapter X.
[Insert Jurisdiction Name] Annex
X.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
[Name, Title]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone #]
e-mail Address: [email address]
[Name, Title]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone #]
e-mail Address: [email address]
X.2 Jurisdiction Profile
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
– Date of Incorporation—[Insert Date of Incorporation]
– Current Population—[Insert Population] as of [Insert Date of Population Count]
– Population Growth—[Insert Discussion of Population Growth]
– Location and Description—[Insert Description of Location, Surroundings, Key Geographic
Features]
– Brief History—[Insert Summary Discussion of Jurisdiction’s History]
– Climate—[Insert Summary Discussion of Climate]
– Governing Body Format—[Insert Summary Description of Governing Body]
– Development Trends—[Insert Summary Description of Development]
X.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table X-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive loss records are as
follows:
– Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: [Insert #]
– Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: [Insert #]
X.4 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table X-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
X.5 Capability Assessment
The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table X-3. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table X-4. The
assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table X-5. Classifications under various
community mitigation programs are presented in Table X-6.
C-13
X.6 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended
Initiatives
Table X-7 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table X-8 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table X-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
X.7 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
[Insert text, if any]
X.8 Additional Comments
[Insert text, if any]
C-14
Table X-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Table X-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C-15
Table X-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
State or
Federal
Prohibitions
Other
Jurisdictional
Authority
State
Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code
Zonings
Subdivisions
Stormwater Management
Post Disaster Recovery
Real Estate Disclosure
Growth Management
Site Plan Review
Special Purpose (flood
management, critical areas)
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive
Plan
Floodplain or Basin Plan
Stormwater Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan
Economic Development
Plan
Emergency Response Plan
Shoreline Management
Plan
Post Disaster Recovery
Plan
Other
Other
C-16
Table X-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices
Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis
Floodplain manager
Surveyors
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area
Emergency manager
Grant writers
Table X-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or
Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants
Capital Improvements Project Funding
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas
State Sponsored Grant Programs
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers
Other
Table X-6. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
Public Protection
Storm Ready
Firewise
C-17
Table X-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
C-18
Table X-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
C-19
Table X-9. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Notes:
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduc e
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and sha tter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, set back
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
D-1
Kittitas County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
APPENDIX D.
JURISDICTIONAL ANNEX INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE
FOR SPECIAL-PURPOSE DISTRICTS
D-2
APPENDIX D.
JURISDICTION ANNEX INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE FOR
SPECIAL-PURPOSE DISTRICTS
D-3
Instructions for Completing
Special-Purpose District Annex Template
This document provides instructions for
completing the annex template for special-
purpose districts participating in multi-
partner hazard mitigation planning.
Assistance in completing the template will be
available in the form of a workshop for all
planning partners or one-on-one visits with
each partner, depending on funding
availability. Any questions on completing the
template should be directed to:
Jessica Fleck
Dewberry
8401 Arlington Blvd.
Fairfax, VA 22031
(703)849-0166
Email: jfleck@dewberry.com
Please provide a digital copy of the completed template to Dwberry upon completion.
Chapter Number and Title
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (West County
Fire Protection District #1, Burgville Flood Protection District, etc.). At this time, also change the name in
the “header” box on Page 3, using the same wording.
Note that the template is set up as Chapter “X.” Please leave all references to “X” in the template as they
are. Once all templates are received, chapter numbering will be assigned for incorporation into the final
plan.
Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact
Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point
of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and
updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your
jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary
point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.
Associated Materials:
Along with the annex template and these instructions, you
have been provided with other materials with information that
is needed for completing the template. Be sure to review
these materials before you begin the process of filling in the
template:
Summary-of-loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan
Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire
Catalog of mitigation alternatives
Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM)
D-4
Jurisdiction Profile
Narrative Profile
Please provide a brief summary to profile your
jurisdiction. Include the purpose of the
jurisdiction, the date of inception, the type of
organization, the number of employees, the mode
of operation (i.e., how operations are funded), the
type of governing body, and who has adoptive
authority. Describe who the jurisdiction’s
customers are (if applicable, include number of
users or subscribers). Include a geographical
description of the service area.
Provide information in a style similar to the
example provided in the box at right. This should
be information that was not provided in the overall
mitigation plan document.
Summary Information
Complete the bulleted list of summary information
as follows:
– Population Served—List the estimated population that your jurisdiction provides services to.
If you do not know this number directly, create an estimate (e.g., the number of service
connections times the average household size for the service area based on Census data).
– Land Area Served—Enter the service area of your jurisdiction in acres or square miles.
– Value of Area Served—Enter the approximate assessed value of your service area. If you do
not have this information, the County should be able to provide a number using the County
Assessor’s database.
– Land Area Owned—Enter the area of property owned by the jurisdiction in acres or square
miles.
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction—List all
infrastructure and equipment that is critical to your jurisdiction’s operations and is located in a
natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the item and give its estimated replacement -cost
value. Examples are as follows:
– Fire Districts—Apparatus and equipment housed in a facility that is located in a natural
hazard risk zone. This is the equipment that is essential for you to deliver services to this
area should a natural hazard occur. It is not necessary to provide a detailed inventory of
each engine and truck and its contents. A summary will suffice, such as “5 Engines, 2
ladders, and their contents”. Do not list reserve equipment.
– Dike/Flood Control Districts—Miles of levees, pump stations, retention/detention ponds,
tide gates, miles of ditches, etc., within natural hazard risk zones.
– Water Districts—Total length of pipe (it is not necessary to specify size and type), pump
stations, treatment facilities, dams and reservoirs, within natural hazard risk zones.
– Public Utility Districts—Miles of power line (above ground and underground), generators,
power generating sub-stations, miles of pipeline, etc., within natural hazard risk zones.
Example Jurisdiction Narrative Profile:
– Humboldt Community Services District is a
special-purpose district created in 1952 to
provide water, sewer, and street lighting to the
unincorporated area surrounding the City of
Eureka known as Pine Hill & Cutten. The
District’s designated service areas expanded
throughout the years to include other
unincorporated areas of Humboldt County
known as Myrtletown, Humboldt Hill, Fields
Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five-
member elected Board of Directors governs the
District. The Board assumes responsibility for
the adoption of this plan; the General Manager
will oversee its implementation. As of April 30,
2007, the District serves 7,305 water
connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with
a current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily
through rates and revenue bonds..
D-5
– School Districts—Anything within natural hazard risk zones, besides school buildings, that
is critical for you to operate (e.g., school buses if you own a fleet of school buses).
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—Enter total replacement-cost value of
the critical infrastructure and equipment listed above.
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction—List all buildings and other facilities
that are critical to your jurisdiction’s operations and are located in a natural hazard risk zone.
Briefly describe the facility and give its estimated replacement-cost value.
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—Enter total replacement-cost value of the critical facilities
listed above.
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends—Enter a brief description on how your
jurisdiction’s services are projected to expand in the foreseeable future and why. Note any
identified capital improvements needed to meet the projected expansion. Examples are as
follows:
– For a Fire District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over
the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and
residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land uses will
represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our
District is experiencing an average annual increase in call volume of 13 percent.
– For Dike/Drainage/Flood Control District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a
13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in
light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density
of land use will result in an increase in impermeable surface within our service area and
thus increase the demand on control facilities.
– For a Water District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth
over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial
and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land use will
represent an increase in the number of housing units within the service area and thus
represent an expansion of the district’s delivery network.
Boundary Map
Maps that illustrate the service area boundary for all special-purpose district partners will be provided at
the workshop. Please confirm that the boundaries reflected on the maps are current and accurate for your
jurisdiction. In the box for this section, include a reference to the map that includes your jurisdiction ’s
boundaries.
Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
In Table X-1, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage
to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it
caused. Please refer to the summary of natural hazard events within risk assessment of the overall hazard
mitigation plan. Potential sources of damage information include:
– Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state
– Insurance claims data
– Newspaper archives
– Other plans/documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a
comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.)
D-6
– Citizen input.
Hazard Risk Ranking
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the
overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and
vulnerability and therefore needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the
overall planning area. The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of
occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and operations. A detailed discussion of the
concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions
below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction to develop results that are to be included in the
template.
Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability
of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows:
– High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
– Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
– Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
– None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability
Factor = 0)
Table 1. Hazard Probability of Occurrence
Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor
The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For
example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of
occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no
damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores
a 1 under this category.
Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and
impacts on your jurisdiction’s operations. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on
people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and
impact on operations was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described
below.
D-7
Impacts on People
To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed
to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation
assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard
zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each
hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows:
– High Impact—50% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
– Medium Impact—25% to 49% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
– Low Impact—25% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
– No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Table 2. Hazard Impact on People
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3)
Impacts on Property
To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total value of buildings,
equipment and infrastructure that is exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for
potential damage to the jurisdiction’s exposed buildings, equipment and infrastructure, taken from the
“Summary of Loss” matrix provided with these instructions.
Table 3. Cost Estimates for Potential Damage to Structures
Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction-
Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard
D-8
In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact
factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows:
– High Impact—50% or more of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and
infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
– Medium Impact—25% to 49% of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and
infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
– Low Impact—24% or less of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and
infrastructure is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
– No impact—None of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and
infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Table 4. Hazard Impact on Property
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2)
Impacts on the Jurisdiction’s Operations
Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your jurisdiction to become
100-percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for critical facilities has
been estimated for most hazards within the planning area. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard
on the operations of your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows:
– High = functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3)
– Medium = Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2)
– Low = Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1)
– No Impact = No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
D-9
Table 5. Hazard Impact on Operations
Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1)
You will need to consult the risk assessment for this task. The critical facilities exposed to each hazard have
been identified, and the impacts on operability have been estimated for most of the hazards within the
planning area. If the functional downtime component has not been provided for a hazard in the risk
assessment, consider the impact on operability of that hazard to be low.
Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the
weighted impact factors for people, property and operations:
– Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + operations}
Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating fo r each
hazard of concern.
Table 6. Hazard Risk Rating
Hazard Type Probability
Factor (P)
Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on
People, Property & Operations (I)
Risk Rating
(P x I)
Complete Risk Ranking in Template
Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table X-2 in your template. The hazard with the highest
risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table X -2 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the
second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk
ratings should be given the same rank.
It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based
on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise
generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter
the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of
the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization
D-10
of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard
you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena.
Applicable Regulations and Plan
List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction
that include elements addressing hazard mitigation. Describe how these laws may support or conflict with
the mitigation strategies of this plan. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard
mitigation issues for your jurisdiction. Note whether the documents could have a positive or a negative
impact on the mitigation strategies of this plan. “None applicable” is a possible answer for this section.
Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs
Complete Table X-3 to indicate your jurisdiction’s participation in various national programs related to
natural hazard mitigation. For each program enter “Yes” or “No” in the second column to indicate whether
your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction has earned under the
program in the third column and the date on which that classification was issued in the fourth column; enter
“N/A” in these columns if your jurisdiction is not participating.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Action Plan Matrix
Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog
for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection
of initiatives:
– Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of
the hazard mitigation plan.
– Identify projects where benefits exceed costs.
– Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant
eligibility.
– Know what is and is not grant-eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided).
Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag
when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant
eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs
sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section.
– Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard -
specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related
project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not
discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility.
D-11
Complete Table X-4 for all the initiatives you have identified:
– Enter the initiative number and description.
– Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for
new or existing assets.
– Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate.
– Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that
the initiative addresses. These have been provided in
the Steering Committee meeting minutes that were
forwarded to you in the past.
– Indicate who will be the lead in administering the
project. This will most likely be your governing body.
– Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant,
include the funding sources for the cost share.
– Indicate the time line as “short term” (1 to 5 years) or
“long term” (5 years or greater).
Technical assistance will be available to your jurisdiction in
completing this section during the technical assistance visit.
Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives
Complete the information in Table X-5 as follows:
– Initiative #—Indicate the initiative number from Table X-4.
– # of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet.
– Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property.
– Medium: Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
– Low: Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.
– Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants,
fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of
the proposed project.
– Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment
of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread
over multiple years.
– Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing
ongoing program.
If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program,
indicate the amount.
– Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter
“Yes” if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating
Wording Your Initiative Descriptions:
Descriptions of your initiatives need not
provide great detail. That will come when
you apply for a project grant. Provide
enough information to identify the
project’s scope and impact. The following
are typical descriptions for an action plan
initiative:
Initiative 1—Address Repetitive
Loss properties. Through targeted
mitigation, acquire, relocate or
retrofit the five repetitive loss
structures in the County as funding
opportunities become available.
Initiative 2—Perform a non-
structural, seismic retrofit of City
Hall.
Initiative 3—Acquire floodplain
property in the Smith subdivision.
Initiative 4—Enhance the County
flood warning capability by joining
the NOAA “Storm Ready” program.
D-12
(high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No”
if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium
cost; etc.)
– Is the Project Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and
PDM.
– Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other
words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization
or funding from another source such as grants?
– Priority—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
– High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under
existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e.,
short term project) once funded.
– Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special
funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project
can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded.
– Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been
secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10
years).
This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the
primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for
HMGP/PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not
exceed the probable costs.
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete Table X-6 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six
mitigation types:
– Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and
buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws,
capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management
regulations.
– Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or
removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural
retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
– Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about
hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard
information centers, and school-age and adult education.
– Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the
functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
– Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after
a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of
essential facilities.
D-13
– Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of
a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.
Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better
understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on
federal or state agency mandates such as EPA’s Bio-terrorism assessment requirement for water districts.
Additional Comments
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not
covered in this template.
D-14
Special-Purpose District Annex Template
Chapter X.
[Insert Jurisdiction Name] Annex
X.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
[Name, Title]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone #]
e-mail Address: [email address]
[Name, Title]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone #]
e-mail Address: [email address]
X.2 Jurisdiction Profile
[Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions]
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
– Population Served—[Insert Population] as of [Insert Date of Population Count]
– Land Area Served—[Insert Area]
– Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is [Insert
Total Value]
– Land Area Owned—[Insert Area]
– List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is [Insert Total Value]
– List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– [Insert Description of Item] [Insert Value of Item]
– Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is [Insert Total Value]
– Current and Anticipated Service Trends—[Insert Summary Description of Service Trends]
D-15
The jurisdiction’s boundaries are shown on Figure [Insert # of Figure Showing Jurisdiction Boundaries]
X.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table X-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
X.4 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table X-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern.
X.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans
The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
– [Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan]
X.6 Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs
The jurisdiction’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table X-3.
X.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended
Initiatives
Table X-4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Table X-5 identifies
the priority for each initiative. Table X-6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and
the six mitigation types.
X.8 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
[Insert text, if any]
X.9 Additional Comments
[Insert text, if any]
D-16
Table X-1. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage
Assessment
Table X-2. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D-17
Table X-3. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Public Protection
Storm Ready
Firewise
Table X-4. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies to new
or existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
Initiative #—Description
D-18
Table X-5. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Initiative
#
# of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/Budgets?
Priority*
* See Section 1.3 for definitions of high, medium and low priorities.
D-19
Table X-6. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives: Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property
Protection
3. Public
Education and
Awareness
4. Natural
Resource
Protection
5. Emergency
Services
6. Structural
Projects
Notes:
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce
hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and
stormwater management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard
area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them.
Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management,
and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning
systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback
levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.