Loading...
3971 Vol 1 Grant_County_HMP_2023_FinalDraftforAdoption_Vol1GRANT COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements 2023 i GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1: PLANNING-AREA-WIDE ELEMENTS November 8, 2023 Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management 35 C Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................... 1 1.1 WHY PREPARE THIS PLAN? ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PLAN? ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ..................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 PLAN UPDATE – WHAT HAS CHANGED ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 THE 2006 PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 THE 2013 PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 WHY UPDATE? ................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.4 THE UPDATED PLAN – WHAT IS DIFFERENT? .......................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 3 PLAN METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 GRANT FUNDING .............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 FORMATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM ................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 8 3.4 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA............................................................................................................................ 9 3.5 THE STEERING COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................................. 9 3.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES .............................................................................................................. 10 3.7 REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.8 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY/MILESTONES ................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 13 4.1 STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 5 GUIDING PRINCIPLE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 20 5.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 20 5.2 GOALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.3 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 6 PLAN ADOPTION ........................................................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER 7 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY ................................................................................................ 23 7.1 PLAN MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................... 23 7.2 STEERING COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................................................... 24 7.3 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 24 7.4 PLAN UPDATE ................................................................................................................................................ 25 7.5 CONTINUING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................... 26 7.6 INCORPORATION INTO OTHER PLANNING MECHANISMS ......................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 8 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................... 27 8.1 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN ..................................................................................................................... 27 8.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 28 8.3 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR NATURAL HAZARDS ................................................................................................ 28 CHAPTER 9 GRANT COUNTY PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 31 9.1 JURISDICTIONS AND ATTRACTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 31 9.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 31 9.3 MAJOR POST HAZARD EVENTS .......................................................................................................................... 32 9.4 PHYSICAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................................... 32 9.5 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................... 34 9.6 DEMOGRAPHICS.............................................................................................................................................. 37 9.7 ECONOMY ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 9.8 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 39 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 iii CHAPTER 10 DAM FAILURE ............................................................................................................................. 41 10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 41 10.2 HAZARD PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................ 43 10.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 46 10.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 47 10.5 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 47 10.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 48 10.7 SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 10.8 ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 11 DROUGHT .................................................................................................................................. 50 11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 50 11.2 HAZARD PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................ 51 11.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 55 11.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 55 11.5 EXPOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 56 11.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 57 11.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 58 11.8 SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 59 11.9 ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 12 EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................................. 60 12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 60 12.2 HAZARD PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................ 64 12.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 68 12.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 68 12.5 EXPOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 12.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 70 12.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 74 12.8 SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 12.9 ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................... 75 CHAPTER 13 FLOOD ........................................................................................................................................ 81 13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 81 13.2 HAZARD PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................ 84 13.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................................... 87 13.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 88 13.5 EXPOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 88 13.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 92 13.7 FUTURE TRENDS ............................................................................................................................................. 95 13.8 SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 96 13.9 ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................... 96 CHAPTER 14 LANDSLIDE .................................................................................................................................. 98 14.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 98 14.2 HAZARD PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................ 98 14.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 101 14.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 101 14.5 EXPOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 102 14.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 103 14.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 104 14.8 SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 105 14.9 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER 15 SEVERE WEATHER ..................................................................................................................... 108 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 iv 15.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 108 15.2 HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................... 114 15.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 117 15.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 117 15.5 EXPOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 118 15.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 118 15.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 120 15.8 SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 120 15.9 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................... 120 CHAPTER 16 VOLCANO ................................................................................................................................. 124 16.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 124 16.2 HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................... 124 16.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 127 16.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 127 16.5 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 127 16.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 128 16.7 SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 128 16.8 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................... 129 CHAPTER 17 WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................. 130 17.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 130 17.2 HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................... 130 17.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 134 17.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 134 17.5 EXPOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 135 17.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 140 17.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 141 17.8 SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 141 17.9 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................... 142 CHAPTER 18 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................................................... 144 18.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 144 18.2 HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................... 145 18.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 147 18.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 148 18.5 EXPOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 149 18.6 VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 153 18.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 154 18.8 SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 154 18.9 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................... 155 CHAPTER 19 PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING ............................................................................................... 157 19.1 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE ......................................................................................................................... 157 19.2 IMPACT ....................................................................................................................................................... 157 19.3 RISK RATING AND RANKING ............................................................................................................................ 158 CHAPTER 20 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 160 CHAPTER 21 AREA-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES ....................................................................................... 168 21.1 SELECTED COUNTY-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES .............................................................................................. 168 21.2 BENEFIT/COST REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 168 21.3 ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 171 21.4 CLASSIFICATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS .......................................................................................................... 172 21.5 ACTION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................... 173 21.6 INTEGRATION INTO OTHER PLANNING MECHANISMS ........................................................................................... 173 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 v CHAPTER 22 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 175 Appendices Appendix A Acronyms and Definitions Appendix B Public Involvement Materials Appendix C Federal and State Agencies, Programs, and Regulations Appendix D Progress Report Template Appendix E FEMA Approval Letter and Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners List of Maps Maps are inserted at the end of each chapter. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Site Class… 12-1 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map… 12-2 Saddle Mountain Fault, 7.35 Magnitude Earthquake Scenario… 12-3 100-year Probability Earthquake… 12-4 500-year Probability Earthquake… 12-5 Floodplain Map… 13-1 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Map… 14-1 Average Annual Precipitation… 16-1 Average Annual Maximum Temperature… 16-2 Average Annual Minimum Temperature… 16-3 Fire Regime Groups Map… 17-1 Mean Fire Return Interval Map… 17-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Manager Kyle Foreman Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management Staff Kyle Foreman Mireya Garcia Consultants Christina Wollman, Perteet Kirk Holmes, Perteet Samantha Criner, Perteet Rob Flaner, TetraTech Carol Baumann, TetraTech AUGUST 22, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? 1.1.1 The Big Picture Hazard mitigation is defined as a way to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster through long- and short-term strategies. It involves strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners, business and industry, and local, state, and federal government. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Prior to 2000, federal disaster funding focused on disaster relief and recovery, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning. The DMA increased the emphasis on planning for disasters before they occur. The DMA encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning, and promotes sustainability for disaster resistance. “Sustainable hazard mitigation” includes the sound management of natural resources and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects. 1.1.2 Local Concerns Several factors initiated this planning effort for Grant County and its planning partners: Limited local resources make it difficult to be pre-emptive in risk reduction initiatives. Being able to leverage federal financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation in the area. The partners wanted to be proactive in its preparedness for the probable impacts of natural hazards. With these factors in mind, Grant County committed to the preparation of the plan by attaining grant funding for the effort and then securing technical assistance to facilitate a planning process that would comply with all program requirements. 1.1.3 Purposes for Planning This hazard mitigation plan update identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they meet a program requirement, and because they best meet the needs of the planning partners and their citizens. One of the benefits of multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi- jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Grant County. The plan was developed to meet the following objectives: • Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 2 • Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation. • Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements. • Create a risk assessment that focuses on Grant County hazards of concern. • Create a single planning document that integrates all planning partners into a framework that supports partnerships within the County, and puts all partners on the same planning cycle for future updates. • Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS classifications. • Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented. 1.2 Who Will Benefit from This Plan? All citizens and businesses of Grant County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan update. The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the County. It provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the County. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders in the County helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable countywide, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships. 1.3 How to Use This Plan This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction-specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole planning area: • Volume 1 – Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, countywide hazard risk assessment, countywide mitigation initiatives, and a plan maintenance strategy. • Volume 2 – Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements, in annexes for each participating jurisdiction. It includes a description of the participation requirements established by the Steering Committee, as well as instructions and templates that the partners used to complete their annexes. Volume 2 also includes “linkage” procedures for eligible jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the future. All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and at least the following parts of Volume 2: Part 1; each partner’s jurisdiction-specific annex; and the appendices. The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the main content of the plan: • Appendix A – A glossary of acronyms and definitions • Appendix B – Public outreach information, including the hazard mitigation questionnaire and summary and documentation of public meetings • Appendix C – An overview on Federal and State agencies, programs, and regulations NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 3 • Appendix D – A template for progress reports to be completed as this plan in implemented • Appendix E – FEMA Approval Letter and Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 4 CHAPTER 2 PLAN UPDATE – WHAT HAS CHANGED 2.1 The 2006 Plan The 2006 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies vulnerability to hazards across the entire county and the planning process used to mitigate hazards. Incorporated jurisdictions and special purpose district were invited to participate. Those that formed the steering and planning committees assisted in jurisdiction-specific information pertaining to assessing risk and identifying initiates to mitigate risks. Unless otherwise indicated, previous mitigation plan initiatives are not replaced by this plan update. 2.2 The 2013 Plan The 2013 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan utilized information from the steering and planning committee to identify risk and vulnerability in the County. This plan included a detailed critical facilities analysis that utilized the HAZUS Comprehensive Data Management System to analyze data. In addition, this plan focused on natural hazards and explored them in detail. Unless otherwise indicated, previous mitigation plan initiatives are not replaced by this plan update. 2.3 Why Update? Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue elements of federal funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. 2.4 The Updated Plan – What Is Different? The 2023 plan updated the 2013 plan keeping a similar format. The plan updated natural hazard information and updated the HAZUS model used in 2013. This plan update includes technological hazards, which the previous plan did not. Table 2-1 indicates the major changes between the two plans as they relate to 44 CFR planning requirements. Table 2-1. Plan Changes Crosswalk. 44 CFR Requirement Updated Plan 2013 Plan Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: • An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the Due to COVID-19 restrictions, a virtual meeting was held for the public outreach that occurred at the beginning of the planning process, in February 2022. This meeting was supported by a project website that was translated into Spanish. An in- person meeting was held during the Public review meetings were sent to the Grant County newspaper of record for 4/16/13 Quincy Fire District 3 Station and for 4/23/13 Big Bend Community College in Moses Lake. Public review and comment was available on the Grant County webpage. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 5 44 CFR Requirement Updated Plan 2013 Plan drafting stage and prior to plan approval; • An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and • Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. draft plan comment period with the Grant County Commissioners. §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The County updated the previous HAZUS model with updated assessor and risk information to support the risk assessment. The County and its jurisdictions utilized HAZUS, when applicable. The Risk Assessment also includes updated CIKR information, which was utilized in the risk analysis. §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences and probability of future hazard events. All disaster events occurring since the last plan edition were included within the plan update, including technological hazards. Technological hazards were not included in this update but there are plans to revise and expand on these hazards between plan updates. Probability is addressed in the frequency and future trends sections of each natural hazards profile. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i). This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Each hazard of concern was reviewed and updated with current information, utilizing the best available science in its profile and risk development. Additionally, HAZUS was utilized to acquire hazard-specific information Each hazard of concern was profiled and updated with current information, utilizing the best available science in its profile and risk development. Additionally, HAZUS was utilized to acquire hazard-specific information. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. There are no repetitive loss structures within Grant County. NFIP information was provided, including CRS information and flood claims. The plan includes general FIRM information from February 8, 2009 and FEMA flood data from 2009 was also used for mapping. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, The risk assessment includes an assessment of the structures county wide, including general building stock and critical facilities. The risk assessment included an assessment of the structures county wide, including general building stock and critical facilities. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 6 44 CFR Requirement Updated Plan 2013 Plan infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Updated loss estimations are included within each hazard profile. The methodology used for the various hazard assessments are included both in the general overview and within the hazard profiles. Loss estimations were included within each hazard profile. The methodology used for the various hazard assessments are included both in the general overview and within the hazard profiles. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. The updated hazard profiles provide information with respect to land use and development trends, and the inclusion of the risk assessment information into future planning efforts. The capabilities matrix also provides information concerning integration of the risk assessment into other planning mechanisms, such as GMA, IBC, etc. Hazard profiles provided information with respect to land use and development trends, and the inclusion of the risk assessment information into future planning efforts. The capabilities matrix also provides information concerning integration of the risk assessment into other planning mechanisms, such as GMA, IBC, etc. §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. The capabilities matrix defines the existing authorities and capabilities in place within the county and its jurisdictions, and defines the inclusion of the risk data as it relates to other planning initiatives throughout the county. The capabilities matrix defined the existing authorities and capabilities in place within the county and its jurisdictions, and defines the inclusion of the risk data as it relates to other planning initiatives throughout the county. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Goals and objectives were modified to support changing priorities. Goals and objectives were consolidated for plan readability. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. The plan includes mitigation initiatives in several categories. Planning partners considered new and existing infrastructure in their mitigation strategy. The plan includes mitigation initiatives in several categories. Planning partners considered new and existing infrastructure in their mitigation strategy. Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, and continued compliance with the program’s requirements, as appropriate. The flood profile includes information concerning the County and its jurisdictions’ involvement in the NFIP, and relates insurance information, claim information and enrollment information. The flood profile includes information concerning the County and its jurisdictions’ involvement in the NFIP, and relates insurance information, claim information and enrollment information. Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy shall describe how Planning partners based their decisions based on information collected through Planning partners based their decisions based on information collected NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 7 44 CFR Requirement Updated Plan 2013 Plan the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. the risk assessment and prioritize based on maximum benefits. through the risk assessment and prioritize based on maximum benefits. Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five- year cycle. Plan maintenance section delineates a plan evaluation and update schedule with action steps to be taken within a five-year cycle. Plan maintenance section delineated a plan evaluation and update schedule with action steps to be taken within a five-year cycle. Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan shall include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Each hazard profile discusses the integration of planning mechanisms throughout the county and their relationship and integration with the hazards of concern. The plan update takes into account other local and county-wide planning elements. Each hazard profile discusses the integration of planning mechanisms throughout the county and their relationship and integration with the hazards of concern. Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. The public involvement strategy is included in the plan maintenance process. The plan will be available for review through the GCSO Emergency Management webpage, periodic press releases, via printed or disc copies to public libraries and through Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings and events. The public involvement strategy was included in the plan maintenance process. The plan was available for review through the Grant County webpage, periodic press releases, via printed or disc copies to public libraries and through Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings and events. Requirement §201.6(c)(5): The local hazard mitigation plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). Documentation of plan adoption is included in Volume 1, Appendix D upon plan approval. Documentation of plan adoption was included in Volume 1, Appendix D upon plan approval. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 8 CHAPTER 3 PLAN METHODOLOGY To develop the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, the County followed a process that had the following primary objectives: • Secure grant funding • Form a planning team • Establish a planning partnership • Define the planning area • Establish a steering committee • Coordinate with other agencies • Review existing programs • Engage the public Chapter 4 describes the public involvement. The other objectives are discussed in the following sections. 3.1 Grant Funding This planning update was funded by a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). GCSO Emergency Management was the applicant agent for the grant. 3.2 Formation of The Planning Team Grant County hired Perteet, Inc and Tetra Tech, Inc. to assist with development and implementation of the plan. The Perteet project manager assumed the role of the lead planner, reporting directly to a County-designated project manager. A planning team was formed to lead the planning effort, made up of the following members: • Christina Wollman, Lead Planner, Perteet • Kirk Holmes, Director of Emergency Preparedness, Perteet • Rob Flaner, Hazard Mitigation Program Manager, Tetra Tech • Kyle Foreman, PIO/Emergency Management Specialist, Grant County Sheriff’s Office • Mireya Garcia, Emergency Management Specialist, Grant County Sheriff’s Office 3.3 Establishment of The Planning Partnership Grant County opened this planning effort to all eligible local governments within the County. The planning team invited all eligible planning partners to a kickoff meeting on November 16, 2021. Key meeting topics were as follows: • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Describe the reasons for a plan update. • Outline the County work plan. • Outline planning partner expectations. • Seek commitment to the planning partnership. • Seek volunteers for the Steering Committee. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 9 Each jurisdiction wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide a “letter of intent to participate” that designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction and confirmed the jurisdiction’s commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. Linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing to link to the Grant County plan in the future. The planning partners covered under this Plan are shown in Table 3-1. Not all planning partners who submitted a letter of intent completed the planning process. Table 3-1. County and City Planning Partners. Jurisdiction Point of Contact Title Covered Under Plan Grant County Kyle Foreman EM Specialist Yes City of Ephrata Jeremy Burns Fire Chief No City of Moses Lake Derek Beach Assistant Fire Chief Yes City of Warden Kristine Schuler City Administrator No Town of Hartline Andrew Allsbrook Mayor Yes Town of Wilson Creek Kevin Newland Mayor No City of Mattawa Juan Ledezma Public Works Director No Port of Quincy Patric Connelly Commissioner No Port of Mattawa Lars Leland Executive Director No Port of Royal Slope Bonnie Valentine Director Yes Port of Moses Lake Richard Mueller Airport Director No Grant County Hospital District #1 – dba Samaritan Healthcare Gretchen Youngren Executive Director Yes Grant County Fire Protection District #8 Matt Hyndman Fire Chief No Grant County Fire Protection District #10 – dba Royal Slope Fire-Rescue-EMS Eric Linn Fire Chief Yes 3.4 Defining the Planning Area The planning area consists of all of Grant County. All partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority within this planning area. 3.5 The Steering Committee Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration and support among diverse parties whose interests can be affected by hazard losses. A steering committee was formed to oversee all phases of the plan. The planning team assembled a list of candidates representing interests within the planning area that could have recommendations for the plan or be impacted by its recommendations. The partnership confirmed a committee of 10 members. Members with an (A) indicate alternates. Name Jurisdiction/ Agency Attendance 12/21 2/24 3/24 5/26 7/28 Kyle Foreman Grant County X X X X X Mireya Garcia (A) Grant County X Jeremy Burns Ephrata X X X X X Dan Leavitt Ephrata X X NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 10 Name Jurisdiction/ Agency Attendance 12/21 2/24 3/24 5/26 7/28 Anthony Graaf (A) Ephrata X Eric Linn Fire District 10 X X X Neil Vargas (A) Fire District 10 Rich Mueller Port of Moses Lake X X X X Patric Connelly (A) Port of Quincy X X X X X Sam Castro Grant County Public Works X X X Andy Booth (A) Grant County Public Works X X Derek Beach Moses Lake X X X X Debbie Burke (A) Moses Lake X Allison Williams (A) Moses Lake X X Leadership roles and ground rules were established during the Steering Committee’s kickoff meeting on December 2, 2021. The Steering Committee agreed to meet monthly or as needed throughout the course of the plan’s development beginning on February 24, 2022. The planning team facilitated each Steering Committee meeting, which addressed a set of objectives based on the work plan established for the plan. 3.6 Coordination with Other Agencies 44CFR requires that opportunities for involvement in the planning process be provided to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests (Section 201.6.b.2). This task was accomplished by the planning team as follows: • Steering Committee Involvement—Agency representatives were invited to participate on the Steering Committee. • Agency Notification—The following agencies were invited to participate in the plan development process from the beginning: o Grant County Departments o Incorporated Municipalities of Grant County (Moses Lake, Ephrata, Wilson Creek, Mattawa, Warden, Hartline, Coulee City, Grant Coulee, Royal City, Electric City, Soap Lake, Marlin, and George). o Special Purpose Districts within Grant County (schools, fire, ports, hospital, etc.) Not all agencies choose to participate in the planning process. Agencies that submitted a letter of intent to participate received meeting announcements, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes by e-mail throughout the plan development process. These included Grant County, Cities of Ephrata, Warden, and Moses Lake, Towns of Wilson Creek and Hartline, Ports of Moses Lake, Royal Slope, Quincy, and Mattawa, Fire Districts 8 and 10, and Samaritan Healthcare. Grant County Public Works, Moses Lake, Ephrata, Hartline, Mattawa, Port of Royal Slope, Port of Quincy, Port of Moses Lake, Fire District #10, Fire District #8, Grant County Sheriff’s Office, and Samaritan Healthcare supported the effort by attending meetings or providing feedback on issues. There was not active participation from private sectors or non-profit organizations. The agencies that did not participate in the planning process, such as private sectors and non-profit organizations that support underserved and socially vulnerable populations will be invited to NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 11 participate in future plan updates and in this current plan through the plan maintenance process described in Chapter 7. • Pre-Adoption Review—All the agencies listed above were provided an opportunity to review and comment on this plan. The public was provided opportunity to participate through the GCSO Emergency Management webpage (see Chapter 4). Each agency listed above was sent an e-mail message informing them that the draft plan was available for review. In addition, the complete draft plan was sent to the Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division for a pre-adoption review to ensure program compliance. 3.7 Review of Existing Programs 44CFR states that hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information (Section 201.6.b(3)). Volume 1, Chapter 9 of this plan provides a review of laws and ordinances in effect within the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation initiatives and in the jurisdictional annexes within Volume 2. An assessment of all planning partners’ regulatory, technical and financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation initiatives is presented in the individual jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2. Many of these relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessment. 3.8 Plan Development Chronology/Milestones Table 3-3 summarizes important milestones in the development of the plan. Table 3-3. Plan Development Milestones. Date Event Description 2019 County submits grant application, seeking funding for plan development process. County receives notice of grant award. 2021 February RFP advertised and consultant selected. County initiates contractor procurement process to select consultant to facilitate planning process. July Contracting completed. Contract with Perteet, Inc and Tetra Tech signed July 21st Internal kickoff meeting. Perteet and initial county project manager met to kick off the project. September 13th Second internal kickoff meeting. Perteet and new county project team met to discuss planning process. November 16th Planning Partnership kickoff meeting All eligible planning partners were invited to attend the kickoff meeting to learn about the planning process, benefits, and expectations. December 14th Stakeholder kickoff meeting Stakeholders and planning partners met to learn more about the stakeholder planning process. The committee was formed and the stakeholders agreed on ground rules and discussed the hazards of concern. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 12 2022 February 24th Stakeholder Meeting #1 • Confirmed hazards of concern • Updated guiding principle • Updated goals March 24th Stakeholder Meeting #2 • Updated objectives • Updated critical facility definition April 28th Stakeholder Meeting #3 • Confirmed adding hazardous materials to plan • Discussed annual progress reporting (led by Emergency Management) • Capabilities assessment survey will be sent out in May • Held Phase 1 Annex workshop May 17th Public Outreach • There were 46 responses to survey • 10 attendees at public meeting (Zoom) May 26th Stakeholder Meeting #4 • Reviewed results of capability survey • Discussed each capability and identified strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement • Held Phase 2 Annex workshop July 28 Stakeholder Meeting #5 • Approved county-wide actions • Held Phase 3 Annex workshop 2023 February 28-March 14th Public Comment Period • No comments were received February 28 Public Meeting • Presentation to the Grant County Board of Commissioners in a public meeting March 17 Draft plan sent to EMD and FEMA • FEMA reviewed plan using new guidance that did not go into effect until April 2023. Plan required some updates to be consistent with new guidance. August 28 Updated plan sent to EMD and FEMA October 31 Receive FEMA approval pending adoption • FEMA commits to approving the plan after receiving documentation of its adoption by the planning partners X/X Adoption • First resolution to adopt dated XX-XX-XXXX. Plan expires in five years, on XX-XX-XXXX. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 13 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the planning area’s needs are considered and addressed. 44CFR requires that the public have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (Section 201.6.b.1). The Community Rating System expands on these requirements by making CRS credits available for optional public involvement activities. 4.1 Strategy The strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements: • Use of a questionnaire to determine the public’s perception via the Grant County Sherriff’s Office Emergency Management webpage. • Attempt to reach as many planning area citizens as possible taking COVID meeting protocols into consideration. • Identify and involve planning area stakeholders. 4.1.1 Stakeholders and the Steering Committee Stakeholders are the individuals, agencies and jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan, including planning partners. The effort to include stakeholders in this process included stakeholder participation on the Steering Committee. The group had representation from special purpose districts, county departments and the local jurisdictions for Grant County. The public was invited to participate through a press release and a post on the Grant County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page (Figure 4-1). 4.1.2 Questionnaire The planning team developed a hazard mitigation plan questionnaire with guidance from the Steering Committee. The questionnaire was used to gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and techniques that assist in reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This questionnaire was designed to help identify areas vulnerable to one or more natural hazards. A summary of its results can be found in Appendix B of this volume. 4.1.3 Opportunity for Public Comment Public Meetings The planning team held a virtual open-house public meeting on May 17, 2022, and presented the draft plan to the Board of County Commissioners during a public meeting on February 28, 2023. The meetings notices were sent to the Grant County newspaper of record. The format allowed attendees to examine the plan, maps, and have direct conversations with project staff. Reasons for planning and information generated for the risk assessment were shared with attendees. Each attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the plan and talk about all-hazards in the County. The meeting was advertised through a press release and a post on the Grant County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page (Figure 4-2 and 4-3). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 14 Internet The GCSO Emergency Management webpage was updated and utilized to provide information to the public. This webpage will continue to be utilized for public access to this plan. The web page can be viewed at: https://www.grantcountywa.gov/653/Emergency-Management. Figure 4-1. Facebook Post Advertising Steering Committee Meetings. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 15 Figure 4-2. Facebook Post Advertising Public Meeting. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 16 Figure 4-3. Public Comment Period and BOCC Presentation. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 17 Story Map Due to COVID meeting restrictions and challenges, the planning team developed a Story Map that provided information about the planning process, information about each hazard, and a hazard mapper. The Story Map was presented in both English and Spanish. The Story Map will remain live after the planning process ends to continue to provide information on local natural hazards to the community. A printout of the Story Map is in Appendix B and a link is: https://arcg.is/ySnar. See Figure 4-4 and 4-5 for excerpts from the Story Map. Figure 4-4. Story Map HMP Information Page. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 18 Figure 4-5. Story Map Hazard Information Page. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 19 4.2 Public Involvement Results By engaging the public through the public involvement strategy, the concept of mitigation was introduced to the public, and the Steering Committee received feedback that was used in developing the components of the plan. Details of attendance and comments received are summarized in Table 4-1. The comments received were addressed during the meetings. Table 4-1. Summary of Public Meetings. Date Location Number of Citizens in Attendance Number of Comments Received 5/17/2022 Meeting #1 - Zoom 10 2 2/28/2023 Meeting #2 – County Commissioners Meeting 9 0 Total 19 2 Figure 4-6. February 28, 2023 Presentation. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 20 CHAPTER 5 GUIDING PRINCIPLE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44CFR Section 201.6.c(3i)). The Steering Committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. The guiding principle, goals, objectives and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the guiding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions were prioritized based on the action meeting multiple objectives. 5.1 Guiding Principle A guiding principle focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome, and it is broader than a hazard- specific objective. The guiding principle for the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is as follows: Through partnerships, reduce the vulnerability to all hazards in order to protect the health, safety, welfare and economy of the communities within Grant County. 5.2 Goals The following are the mitigation goals for this plan: 1. Protect life, property, and the environment. 2. Increase the whole community’s awareness of their risk to hazards through education, outreach, and partnerships. 3. Support local capacity building that enables the whole community to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impact of hazards and disasters. 4. Establish a hazard and disaster resilient economy. 5. Encourage the development and implementation of resilient, long-term, cost-effective, and equitable mitigation projects. The effectiveness of a mitigation strategy is assessed by determining how well these goals are achieved. 5.3 Objectives Each selected objective meets multiple goals, serving as a stand-alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities. The objectives are as follows: 1. Reduce natural hazard-related risks and vulnerability to populations, critical facilities and infrastructure within the planning area. 2. Minimize the impacts of natural hazards on current and future land uses by encouraging use of incentives for hazard mitigation (i.e. NFIP, CRS). 3. Prevent or discourage new development in hazardous areas or ensure that if building occurs in high-risk areas it is done in such a way as to minimize risk. 4. Integrate hazard mitigation policies into land use plans within the planning area . NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 21 5. Update the plan annually to integrate local hazard mitigation plans and the results of disaster- and hazard-specific planning efforts. 6. Make information on risk exposure to hazards and ways to increase capability accessible to the whole community. 7. Utilize the best available data, science and technologies to improve understanding of both the current and future conditions of risk within the planning area. 8. Retrofit, purchase, or relocate structures and critical facilities in high hazard areas including those known to be repetitively damaged. 9. Establish a partnership among all levels of government and the business community to improve and implement methods to protect property. 10. Encourage hazard mitigation measures that result in the least adverse effect to both current and future conditions that leverage nature-based solutions or ecosystem services. 11. Use hazard mitigation information to empower the whole community to make informed choices on where to live and how to prepare for hazards in their specific area. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 22 CHAPTER 6 PLAN ADOPTION Section 201.6.c.5 of 44CFR requires documentation that a hazard mitigation plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting federal approval of the plan. For multi- jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that it has been formally adopted. This plan will be submitted for a pre-adoption review to Washington Military Department, State Emergency Management Division and the State forwards the plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Once pre-adoption approval has been provided, planning partners will formally adopt the plan. All partners understand that DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting this plan for all planning partners can be found in Appendix E of this volume. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 23 CHAPTER 7 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Plan maintenance is the formal process for achieving the following: • Ensuring that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partnership maintains its eligibility for applicable funding sources • Monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years • Integrating public participation throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process • Incorporating the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as any relevant comprehensive land-use planning process, capital improvement planning process, and building code enforcement and implementation. A hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following (44CFR Section 201.6.c.4): • A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan over a 5-year cycle. • A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. • A discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. This chapter details the formal process that will ensure that the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable funding sources. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years. This chapter also describes how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process. It also explains how the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan will be incorporated into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land-use planning processes, capital improvement planning, and building code enforcement and implementation. The plan’s format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. 7.1 Plan Monitoring and Implementation The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on monitoring, implementation and incorporation of its action items into partner jurisdictions’ existing plans, policies, and programs. Together, the action items in the Plan provide a framework for activities that the partnership can implement over the next five years. The planning team and the steering committee have established goals and objectives and have prioritized mitigation actions that will be implemented through existing plans, policies, and programs. The GCSO Emergency Management will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and maintenance will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies. At a minimum, the planning partners will track and report the status NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 24 of the jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions for inclusion into the annual progress report, described in Section 7.3. 7.2 Steering Committee The steering committee that oversaw the development of the plan made recommendations on key elements of the plan, including the maintenance strategy. The steering committee will remain a viable body involved in key elements of the plan maintenance strategy. The steering committee will include representation from each planning partner jurisdiction, as well as other stakeholders in the planning area. Agencies such as private sector, non-profit organizations, and agencies that support underserved and socially vulnerable populations will be invited to participate as a steering committee member or guest to foster partnerships and collaboration in the plan maintenance process. These essential agencies will be invited into the plan maintenance process through outreach such as emails, official letters, or phone calls. The importance of their involvement in the hazard mitigation plan maintenance process will be clearly communicated and their expertise can greatly contribute to improved safety and resilience within Grant County. The principal role of the steering committee in this plan maintenance strategy will be to annually review the plan, the annual progress reports, and provide input to GCSO Emergency Management on possible enhancements. Future plan updates will be overseen by the steering committee. Completion of the individual progress reports are the responsibility of each planning partner. The steering committee will review the progress reports in an effort to identify issues needing to be addressed by future plan updates. 7.3 Annual Progress Report The minimum task of each planning partner will be the evaluation of the progress of its individual mitigation initiatives during a 12-month period. This review will include the following: • Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and the impact these events had on the planning area. • Review of mitigation success stories. • Review of continuing public involvement. • Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed. • Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term one because of new funding). • Recommendations for new projects. • Changes in or potential for new funding options such as grant opportunities. • Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation. The Steering Committee has created a template to guide the planning partners in preparing a progress report (see Appendix C). The Steering Committee will report on the progress of the plan. This report should be used as follows: • Posted on the Grant County Department of Emergency Management webpage • Presented to planning partner governing bodies to inform them of progress. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 25 • For those planning partners that participate in the Community Rating System, the report can be provided as part of the CRS annual re-certification package. The CRS requires an annual recertification to be submitted by October 1 of every calendar year for which the community has not received a formal audit. Uses of the progress report will be at the discretion of each planning partner. Annual progress reporting is not a requirement specified under 44CFR. However, it may enhance the planning partnership’s opportunities for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a planning partner’s compliance under the Disaster Mitigation Act, it may jeopardize its opportunity to partner and leverage funding opportunities with the other partners. Each planning partner was informed of these protocols at the beginning of this planning process (in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided at the start of the process), and each partner acknowledged these expectations when with submittal of a letter of intent to participate in this process. 7.4 Plan Update 44CFR requires that local hazard mitigation plans be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to remain eligible for benefits under the Disaster Mitigation Act (Section 201.6.d.3). The Grant County Planning Partnership intends to update the hazard mitigation plan on a five-year cycle from the date of initial plan adoption. This cycle may be accelerated to less than five years based on the following triggers: • A Presidential Disaster Declaration that impacts the planning area. • A hazard event that causes loss of life. • A comprehensive update of the County or participating city’s comprehensive plan. It will not be the intent of future updates to develop a complete new hazard mitigation plan for the planning area. The update will, at a minimum, include the following elements: • The update process will be convened through a steering committee. • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and if necessary, updated using best available information and technologies. • The mitigation initiatives will be reviewed and revised to account for actions completed, removed, replaced, or updated and to account for changes in the risk assessment or new partnership policies identified under other planning mechanisms (such as the comprehensive plan). • The draft update will be sent to planning partners and organizations for comment. • The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption. • The partnership governing bodies will adopt the updated plan. Because plan updates can require a year or more to complete, Grant County Emergency Management will initiate efforts to update the plan before it expires. The County will consider applying for funding to update the plan in the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 grant cycle or will identify an alternate source of funding for the plan update in order to begin the update process in the fall of 2026. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 26 7.5 Continuing Public Involvement The public will continue to be apprised of the plan’s progress through the Grant County Emergency Management webpage and press releases. This site will house the final plan and will be a one-stop shop for information regarding the plan, the partnership and plan implementation. Copies of the plan will be distributed to public libraries in Grant County. Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated based on guidance from a new steering committee. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the planning partnership at the time of the update. 7.6 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation contained in this plan is based on the best science and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The Grant County Comprehensive Plan and the comprehensive plans of the partner cities are considered to be integral parts of this plan. The County and partner cities, through adoption of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The plan development process provided the County and the cities with the opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their comprehensive plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the Grant County. An update to a comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. All municipal planning partners are committed to coordinate their own individual comprehensive plans with the hazard mitigation plan. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following: • Partners’ emergency response plans. • Capital improvement programs. • Municipal codes. • Community design guidelines. • Water-efficient landscape design guidelines. • Stormwater management programs. • Water system vulnerability assessments. • Master fire protection plans. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 27 CHAPTER 8 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. It allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following elements: • Hazard identification—Use all available information to determine what types of disasters may affect a jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity. • Vulnerability identification—Determine the impact of natural hazard events on the people, property, environment, economy, and lands of the region. • Cost evaluation—Estimate the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation. The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan update evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in Grant County and meets requirements of the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)). 8.1 Identified Hazards of Concern For this plan, the Steering Committee considered the full range of natural hazards that could impact the planning area and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated review of state and local hazard planning documents, as well as information on the frequency, magnitude and costs associated with hazards that have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning area’s assets to them was also used. Based on the review, this plan addresses the following hazards of concern: • Natural hazards: o Dam failure o Drought o Earthquake o Flood o Landslide o Severe Storms o Volcano o Wildfire • Technological hazards: o Hazardous materials This hazard mitigation plan update addresses climate change as a secondary impact for some identified hazards. Those hazard chapters include a section with a qualitative discussion on the probable impacts of climate change for that hazard. Although specific models have not been developed for Grant County, regional predictions are available for several hazards. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 28 8.2 Methodology Overview 8.2.1 Natural Hazards The risk assessments in Chapter 10 through Chapter 17 describe the risks associated with each identified natural hazard of concern. Each chapter describes the hazard, the planning area’s vulnerabilities, and probable event scenarios. The following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard: • Identify and profile each hazard—The following information is given for each hazard: o Geographic areas most affected by the hazard o Event frequency estimates o Severity estimates o Warning time likely to be available for response • Determine exposure to each hazard—Exposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which of them would be exposed to each hazard. • Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities—Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and FEMA’s hazard-modeling program called HAZUS-MH were used to perform this assessment for the flood, dam failure and earthquake hazards. 8.2.2 Technological Hazards This plan update includes technological hazards. Grant County is at high risk of a future hazardous materials incident. There are several fixed facilities within the county that are participating in Tier II reporting. Furthermore, due to the industrial transportation along roads and rail corridors, the County remains vulnerable to hazardous incidents occurring on accident, with malicious intent, or due to fire and weather-related events. Through examining the risk of technological hazards, the County can begin to better prepare for and mitigate future incidents. 8.3 Risk Assessment Tools for Natural Hazards 8.3.1 Dam Failure, Earthquake and Flood—HAZUS-MH Overview In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards US, or HAZUS, model to estimate losses caused by earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. HAZUS was later expanded into a multi-hazard methodology, HAZUS-MH, with new models for estimating potential losses from hurricanes and floods. HAZUS-MH is a GIS-based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency planning, and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical facilities, transportation, and utility lifelines, and multiple models to estimate potential losses from natural disasters. The program maps and displays hazard data, and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following: NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 29 • Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities. • Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve. • Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated. • Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology. • Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders. • Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan throughout its implementation. The version used for this plan was HAZUS-MH 5.01. Levels of Detail for Evaluation HAZUS-MH provides default data for inventory, vulnerability, and hazards; this default data can be supplemented with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis, depending on the format and level of detail of information about the planning area: • Level 1—All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software’s default data. This data is derived from national databases and describes in general terms the characteristic parameters of the planning area. • Level 2—More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the planning area. To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology, hydrology, hydraulics, and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format. • Level 3—This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area. Application for This Plan The following methods were used to assess specific hazards for this plan: • Flood—A Level 2, general building stock analysis was performed. GIS building and assessor data (replacement cost values and detailed structure information) were loaded into HAZUS-MH. An updated inventory was used in place of the HAZUS-MH defaults for essential facilities, transportation and utilities. Current Grant County DFIRMs were used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 100-year flood event. Using the DFIRM floodplain boundaries and a county-wide digital elevation model (DEM), a flood depth grid was generated and integrated into the model. • Dam Failure—Dam failure inundation mapping for Grant County was not available. • Earthquake—A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake risk and exposure. Earthquake shake maps and probabilistic data prepared by the US Geological Survey (USGS) were used for the analysis of this hazard. An updated general building stock inventory was developed using replacement cost values and detailed structure information from assessor tables. An updated inventory of essential facilities, transportation, and utility features was used in place of the HAZUS-MH defaults. Washington Department of Natural Resources National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) soils and Soils Liquefaction data was incorporated into the model. One scenario event and two probabilistic events were modeled: o The scenario event was a Magnitude-7.3 Saddle Mountain Fault event. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 30 o The standard HAZUS analysis for the 100- and 500-year probabilistic earthquake events was run. 8.3.2 Landslide, Severe Winter Storms, Volcano, and Wildfire For most of the hazards evaluated in this risk assessment, historical data was not adequate to model future losses. However, HAZUS-MH is able to map hazard areas, and calculate exposures if geographic information is available on the locations of the hazards and inventory data. Areas and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped and exposure was evaluated. For other hazards, a qualitative analysis was conducted using the best available data and professional judgment. County-relevant information was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, emergency management specialists, and others. The primary data source was the Grant County GIS database, augmented with state and federal data sets. Additional data sources for specific hazards were as follows: • Landslide—A dataset of steep slopes was generated using a 10-meter digital elevation model. Two slope classifications were created: 15 to 30%; and greater than 30%. Slope data was intersected with NEHRP Soils class D and E, described as soft soils. • Severe Winter Storms—Severe weather data was downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Climatic Data Center. • Wildfire—Information on Wildfire Regime areas was provided by LandFire. 8.3.3 Drought The risk assessment methodologies used for this plan focus on damage to structures, property, and lives. Because drought tends to cause economic and ecological damage, such as lost crops and low flows in creeks, the risk assessment for drought was more limited and qualitative than the assessment for the other hazards of concern. 8.3.4 Limitations Loss estimates, exposure assessments and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following: • Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study. • Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic, and/or or economic parameter data. • The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard. • Mitigation measures already employed. • The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event. These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate. The results do not predict precise results and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, Grant County and its planning partners will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 31 CHAPTER 9 GRANT COUNTY PROFILE Grant County is located in central Washington. It is the 13th most populous county in the state. Its incorporated cities and towns are: Coulee City, Electric City, Ephrata, George, Grand Coulee, Hartline, Krupp, Mattawa, Moses Lake, Quincy, Royal City, Soap Lake, Warden and Wilson Creek. Ephrata, in the center of the county, is the county seat. 9.1 Jurisdictions and Attractions Grant County is a rural county with a geographic area of 2,679 square miles, ranking 4th in size among Washington’s 39 counties. The largest incorporated jurisdiction is the City of Moses Lake with a population of 23,442 (US Census Bureau, 2021). Moses Lake is one of the state’s largest natural fresh water lakes which attracts tourists for boating and water sports (Grant County Tourism, 2013). The City of Warden is an agricultural community. To the north lies the incorporated jurisdictions of Coulee City, Electric City, Grand Coulee, Hartline, and Wilson Creek. These communities offer camping, boating, hunting, fishing and hiking. Grand Coulee Dam has a visitor’s center and laser light show that brings in tourists during the summer months. This dam is the largest hydropower producer in the US and is one of the largest concrete structures in the world (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2013). City of Ephrata is the county seat where the County Courthouse is located, with the City of Soap Lake a few miles away. The City of Quincy and Town of George are also agricultural communities, with the Crescent Bar recreation area just miles away. This recreation area along the Columbia River is set below basalt cliffs and has several condominium and resort buildings, attracting vacationers from across Washington State. The Gorge Amphitheatre draws in from 3,000 to 20,000 people per concert. The concerts are part of the area’s local economy. The Quincy area is also home to several large data centers. The City of Royal City and Town of Mattawa to the south are agricultural communities nestled among orchards and vineyards. Big Bend Community College near Moses Lake has an enrollment of 1,600-2,000 students annually. The college also houses the Central Washington University satellite campus program. There are several program options including the sciences, technology, education, flight, business, and the arts (Big Bend Community College, 2013). 9.2 Historical Overview Settlers first came to Grant County in the mid to late 1800’s with plans of raising livestock, but the area was somewhat desolate. The county was officially created by Washington State Legislature in 1909, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 32 named after Ulysses S. Grant. The plans of raising livestock transitioned to dryland farming but irrigation would provide a wide range of benefits to the people. The creation of Grand Coulee Dam was approved in 1933 and completed in 1942. The Grand Coulee Dam is the cornerstone of the Columbia Basin Project, a multi-purpose project which now irrigates over 500,000 acres. Other benefits of the Columbia Basin Project are the electricity generated and waterways that provide miles of recreational activities within the area. 9.3 Major Post Hazard Events Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. Grant County has experienced six events since 1957 for which presidential disaster declarations were issued. These events are listed in Table 9-1. Review of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a community’s capability to avoid large-scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern. Table 9-1. Presidential Disaster Declarations for Hazard Events in Grant County. Type of Event Disaster Declaration # Date Flood 70 March 1957 Flood 146 March 1963 Drought (WA Declared) 3037 March 1977 Volcano 623 May 1980 Ice, Wind, Snow, Landslide, and Flood 1159 December 1996-February 1997 Severe Winter Storm, Wind, Landslide, Mudslide 1682 December 2006 Barker Canyon Fire 5013 September 2012 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides 4309 January-February 2017 Buckshot Fire 5257 July 2018 Grass Valley Fire 5271 August 2018 COVID-19 3427 January 2020-Present COVID-19 Pandemic 4481 January 2020-Present 9.4 Physical Setting 9.4.1 Geology Grant County is in the Columbia Basin, an expansive area within eastern Washington, southwestern Idaho, and northern Oregon. It is characterized by basalt rocks, plateaus, and ridges. Between 17 and 6 million years ago, basaltic lava floods engulfed much of the Pacific Northwest. Approximately 15,000 years ago an ice dam gave way, causing flooding and the creation of channels through basalt rock. (WA DNR, 2013). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 33 The topography in Grant County is variable, ranging from low rolling hills in the north to smooth, south- sloping plains in the south. The plains and hills are dissected by channeled scablands and coulees. Ground surface elevation ranges from 380 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the south end of the County along the Columbia River to about 2,880 feet MSL at Monument Hill. The Grand Coulee, which contains Banks Lake, Park Lake, Blue Lake, Lake Lenore and Soap Lake, dissects the hills along the northwestern County line. The Columbia River flows along the southwestern and south boundaries of the County. The Beezley Hills, which are west of Ephrata and north of Quincy, trend generally east-west along the transition between the rolling hills and plains. The Frenchman Hills separate the plains south of Quincy and Royal Slope. Crab Creek lies between Royal Slope and the Saddle Mountains to the south. Wahluke Slope is bounded by the Saddle Mountains and the Columbia River. Evergreen Ridge, Babcock Bench and Babcock Ridge trend generally north-south along the east side of the Columbia River (Grant County, 2006). 9.4.2 Soils The US Soil Conservation Service has generally characterized the surficial soils in Grant County as very shallow to very deep and well-drained to excessively drained. These soils are formed in glacial outwash, loess, lake deposits, and alluvial and colluvial deposits from rivers, streams, and surface water runoff. Soils on the outwash range from sandy loams to silty loams and generally are gravelly in profile. The glacial outwash and the alluvium along existing streams such as Crab Creek yield large quantities of water. Soils on lake beds are compacted, stratified silts. The loess and other windblown deposits range from sandy to silty. These soils erode easily (Grant County, 2006). 9.4.3 Seismic Features Some parts of Grant County have a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction including areas around Crab Creek, Soap Lake, Moses Lake, Wilson Creek, and Hartline. In an earthquake, strong ground shaking may cause soil in this area to lose strength and behave like quicksand. There are two fault lines in the county Frenchman Hills and Saddle Mountains Fault lines. Recent deformation has been documented along the Saddle Mountain fault. Evidence for quaternary faulting includes late Pleistocene to Holocene faulting along a graben adjacent to the Saddle Mountain fault, which suggests recent movement. A shallow-crustal quake in this area could be more damaging because the seismic waves are closer to the earth’s surface than in a deeper earthquake (FEMA, USGS, WA-DNR, WA-EMD, 2012-2013). There are hanging wall tensional features in the Saddle Mountains anticline that probably cannot accommodate additional strain. The additional strain would likely induce a fault slip (Lidke, 2002). 9.4.4 Climate Grant County advertises 300 days of sunshine every year. Most of the air masses and weather systems crossing eastern Washington are traveling under the influence of the prevailing westerly winds. In the summer season, air from over the continent results in low relative humidity and high temperatures. In the winter, cold weather prevails. Extremes in temperature in both summer and winter occur when the inland basin is under the influence of air from over the continent. During most of the year, prevailing wind is from the west or southwest. Northeasterly winds are more frequent in fall and winter. Extreme wind velocities can be expected to reach 50 mph at least once in two years; 60 to 70 mph once in 50 years and 80 mph once in 100 years (Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006). Table 9-2 provides temperature and precipitation averages for Ephrata. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 34 Table 9-2. Temperature and Precipitation Averages. The Columbia Basin is a semi-arid region with four distinct seasons. The land receives 8 to 11 inches of precipitation annually in the western and southern part, with about 1.0 to 1.5 inches of precipitation June through August. In winter, the maritime influence is strong due to prevailing westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean. Summer days are typically hot and dry. Extreme temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit and reach below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in winter (Grant County 2006). 9.5 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure A critical facility is a structure, facility or other improvement that, because of its function, service area, or uniqueness, provides service that enables the continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and is critical to human health and safety, or economic security. For the purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, the following categories of lifelines are defined as critical facilities: • Safety and Security—Law enforcement/security, search and rescue, fire services, government service, responder safety, and imminent hazard mitigation • Food, Water and Shelter—Evacuations, schools, food/potable water, shelter, durable goods, water infrastructure and agriculture • Health and Medical—Medical care (hospitals), patient movement, public health, fatality management, health care and supply chain • Energy—Power (grid), temporary power and fuel • Communications—Infrastructure, alerts, warnings, messages, 911 and dispatch, responder communications and financial services • Transportation—Highway/roadway, mass transit, railway, aviation, maritime and pipeline • Hazardous Materials—Facilities, hazardous debris, pollutants and contaminants Critical facilities within the cities participating in this plan are shown in maps for each city provided in Volume 2 of the plan. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The list is on file with each planning partner. Table 9-3 and 9-4 provide the general types of critical facilities and infrastructure, respectively, in each municipality and unincorporated county areas. All critical facilities/infrastructure were analyzed in HAZUS to help rank risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard. Figure 9-1 shows the locations of critical facilities within Grant County. Ephrata Weather Averages 2000-2021 Temperature Type Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Average Max Temperature 35 43 54 63 73 80 89 87 78 62 46 35 Average Min Temperature 23 27 31 28 47 54 61 59 50 39 29 23 Precipitation Average Monthly 0.91 0.64 0.70 0.58 0.75 0.65 0.3 0.18 0.22 0.66 0.86 1.13 Data Source: NOAA 2022 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 35 Figure 9-1. Critical Facilities in Grant County. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 36 Table 9-3. Grant County Critical Facilities. City Medical and Health Government Functions Protective Functions Schools Hazmat Other Critical Functions Total Coulee City 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 Electric City 0 4 1 0 0 3 8 Ephrata 2 1 4 11 3 7 28 George 0 2 0 1 0 2 5 Grand Coulee 2 3 3 6 0 6 20 Hartline 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 Krupp 0 2 1 0 0 2 5 Mattawa 2 1 2 5 0 3 13 Moses Lake 5 36 3 11 5 23 83 Quincy 2 7 1 7 3 11 31 Royal City 1 4 1 3 0 7 16 Soap Lake 1 3 2 4 0 9 19 Warden 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Wilson Creek 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Unincorporated 0 6 22 23 10 50 111 Total 15 70 45 79 21 124 354 Table 9-4. Grant County Critical Infrastructure. City Bridges Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other Total Coulee City 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Electric City 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Ephrata 3 3 0 2 1 1 10 George 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Grand Coulee 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 Hartline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Krupp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mattawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moses Lake 10 5 2 0 2 1 20 Quincy 4 0 1 2 0 1 8 Royal City 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 Soap Lake 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Warden 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Wilson Creek 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Unincorporated 251 2 2 7 15 28 305 Total 272 13 7 14 22 34 362 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 37 9.6 Demographics Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Research has shown that households experiencing poverty, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, women, children, ethnic minorities, and renters all experience, to some degree, heightened effects from disasters. These groups may have different living conditions and less access to information before, during and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post- disaster recovery. 9.6.1 Grant County Population Characteristics Knowledge of the composition of the population is needed for making informed decisions about the future. Information about population is a critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public facilities, public services, and transportation. Grant County has the 13th largest population of Washington’s 39 counties. The US Census estimated Grant County’s population at 99,123 as of 2020. The County’s largest city is Moses Lake, with an estimated 2020 population of 25,146. Ephrata, the county seat, is the second most populated city with over 8,470 residents. According to the Office of Financial Management population estimates, 45.4% of County residents live in unincorporated areas. Table 9-5 shows the population of incorporated municipalities and the combined unincorporated areas in Grant County. Population changes are useful indicators of a region’s economic vitality. A growing population generally indicates a growing economy, while a declining population signifies economic decline. In 2011, Grant County's estimated mid-year population was 90,100. Table 9-5 shows the population of incorporated municipalities and the combined unincorporated areas in Grant County from 2004 through 2020. Table 9-5. Grant County Population Growth Over Time. Municipality 2004 2012 2020 Coulee City 605 560 549 Electric City 950 995 956 Ephrata 6,890 7,750 8,477 George 525 700 809 Grand Coulee 925 1,035 972 Hartline 135 150 180 Krupp 65 50 49 Mattawa 3,265 4,495 3,335 Moses Lake 16,110 20,950 25,146 Quincy 5,255 6,945 7,543 Royal City 1,815 2,160 1,776 Soap Lake 1,735 1,520 1,691 Warden 2,540 2,695 2,449 Wilson Creek 245 205 204 Total Incorporated 41,060 50,210 54,136 Total Unincorporated 37,240 40,790 44,987 Total Grant County 78,300 91,000 99,123 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management 2020 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 38 9.6.2 Income In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters to some extent. Because of these normalized assumptions, Individuals experiencing poverty may experience additional challenges when confronting hazards. For example, they may occupy poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing and in urban areas, older houses and apartment complexes are more likely to be made of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, people experiencing poverty are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters, meaning they are ill-equipped to deal with potential losses. The events following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 illustrated that personal household economics significantly impact people’s decisions. Based on the US Census Bureau – American Community Survey (ACS) estimates in 2020, per capita income in Grant County was $25,333, and the median household income was $59,165. It is estimated that 13.6% of the population of Grant County is below the poverty line. 9.6.3 Age Distribution Elderly individuals may struggle to respond to hazard events and are more likely to have health-related complications that make recovering from a disaster slower. Possible health considerations include vision, hearing, mobility, or mental impairment. Additionally, elderly individuals may live in assisted- living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly residents who live in their own homes may have additional considerations during evacuation procedures. Medical attention necessary for some individuals may not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population. Children under 14 are vulnerable to disaster events because of their young age and dependence on others for basic necessities. Very young children may additionally be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves from hazards. According to the US Census Bureau estimates for 2020, 14%, or just over 14,000 residents of Grant County are 65 years or older. It is estimated that 29.3% of the County’s population is 18 or younger, slightly more than the state average of 21.8%. 9.6.4 Race, Ethnicity, and Language Research shows that ethnic minorities are less likely to be involved in pre-disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during a disaster event. Post-disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by cultural insensitivity. According to the US Census, the largest racial composition of Grant County is white, at about 53.3%. The largest minority population is Hispanic, at 42.2% of the total County population. Other than English, the most commonly spoken language in Grant County is Spanish, spoken by 34.4% of the population. The Census estimates that approximately 17% have limited English proficiency. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 39 People living with disabilities may have difficulty responding to a hazard event, depending on their individual disability. Disabilities can vary greatly in severity and permanence, making populations difficult to define and track. There is no “typical” disabled person, which can complicate disaster- planning processes that attempt to incorporate them. Disabilities may be compounded with other vulnerabilities, such as age or economic disadvantage. While the percentage of disabled within Grant County is virtually identical to the state as a whole (8.1% vs. 8.8% respectively), the overall numbers are significant and warrant special attention from planners and emergency managers. 9.7 Economy According to GrantCountyTrends.org, in 2021 the annual average unemployment rate for Grant County stood at 6%, slightly higher than the overall unemployment rate for Washington State, at 5.2% and a national average of 5.4% According to the 2019 Washington OFM Databook and demonstrated in Figure 9-2, the largest employment sector in Grant County is Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting with 23.7% of total employment. Government services make up 17.5%, followed by manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade with 11.5% and 8.7%, respectively. Only about 1% of the industry in the County is involved with professional and technical services. Currently, the largest employer within Grant County is the Moses Lake School District #161, followed by Samaritan Healthcare. The third largest employer is the Grant County Government. According to the American Community Survey, 62% of Grant County’s population age 16 years and over is in the labor force. Women work an average of 36.9 hours per week, and men work an average of 42.4 hours per week. 9.8 Future Trends in Development The County and its cities and towns have adopted comprehensive plans that govern land use decision and policy making their jurisdictions. Decisions on land use will be governed by these programs. This plan will work together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards in Grant County. Figure 9-2. Occupations in Grant County. Data source: US Census. 23.7% 17.5% 11.5% 8.7%7.0% 31.6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Local Government Manufacturing Retail Trade Health Services All Other Industries Grant County Employment NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 40 All municipal planning partners will incorporate by reference the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update in their comprehensive plans. This will assure that all future trends in development can be established with the benefits of the information on risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 41 CHAPTER 10 DAM FAILURE 10.1 General Background 10.1.1 Causes of Dam Failure Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways: 1. Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34% of all dam failures, can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors. 2. Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30% of all dam failures. 3. Failure due to piping and seepage accounts for 20% of all failures. These are caused by internal erosion due to piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure. 4. Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10% of all failures. The remaining 6% of US dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes (USACE, 2022). Many dam failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage. The most likely disaster-related causes of dam failure in Grant County are flood and sabotage. There are currently 64 dams in Grant County. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies. DEFINITIONS Dam—Any artificial barrier and/or any controlling works, together with appurtenant works, that can or does divert impound or water (Washington Administrative Code, Title 173, Chapter 175.). Dam Failure—An uncontrolled release of impounded water due to structural deficiencies in dam. Emergency Action Plan—A document that identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies actions to be followed to minimize property damage and loss of life. The plan specifies actions the dam owner should take to alleviate problems at a dam. It contains procedures and information to assist the dam owner in issuing early warning and notification messages to responsible downstream emergency management authorities of the emergency situation. It also contains inundation maps to show emergency management authorities the critical areas for action in case of an emergency. (FEMA 64) High Hazard Dam—Dams where failure or operational error will probably cause loss of human life. (FEMA 333) Significant Hazard Dam—Dams where failure or operational error will result in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage or disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. Significant hazard dams are often located in rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure. (FEMA 333) NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 42 10.1.2 Regulatory Oversight The potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act (Public Law 92-367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of every major dam in the country. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect the lives and property of the public. Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Guidelines Under Washington State law, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for regulating dams that capture and store at least 10 acre-feet (about 3.2 million gallons) of water or watery materials such as mine tailings, sewage and manure waste. The Department currently regulates nearly 1,157 water storage dams throughout the state. All statutory sized dams must be inspected by the Department. However, according to the Department of Ecology, with the current dam safety staffing, it is anticipated that high hazard dam inspections will occur on a 6-year cycle, while inspections on significant hazard dams will occur on a 12-year cycle. These inspection periods are longer than what federal dam safety guidelines recommend. The first dam safety law in Washington was passed as part of the state water code in 1917 (RCW 90.03.350) This law required that engineering plans for any dam that could impound 10 or more acre- feet had to be reviewed and approved by the state before construction could begin. Over the years, the Department of Conservation and Development, then the Department of Water Resources performed this function. In 1970, responsibility transferred to the new Department of Ecology. In Washington, besides regulating dams that meet the NID requirements, there are over 370 dams which do not meet one of the four criteria above, but do fall under the 10 acre-foot jurisdictional level. Ecology’s Dam Safety Office currently oversees 996 of the 1,125 dams across the state. Through plan reviews and construction inspections, the agency helps ensure these facilities are properly designed and constructed. To reasonably secure the safety of human life and property, Ecology also conducts inspections of existing dams to assure proper operation and maintenance. The ages of dams in Washington vary from 11 dams constructed pre-1900, to more than 50 dams being completed since 2000. The age of a dam is also a factor in the stability, as many dams are constructed for a specified number of years, as well as the integrity of the materials used to construct the dam may deteriorate over time. US Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency’s capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the largest dam safety program in the United States. The FERC cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety and, more recently, homeland security. There are 3,036 dams that are part of regulated hydroelectric projects are in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC staff inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 43 • Potential dam safety problems. • Complaints about constructing and operating a project. • Safety concerns related to natural disasters. • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent consulting engineer, approved by the FERC, must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet, or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet. FERC staff monitors and evaluates seismic research in geographic areas where there are concerns about seismic activity. This information is applied in investigating and performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects in these areas. FERC staff also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC staff visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. The FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. 10.2 Hazard Profile 10.2.1 Past Events Since 1918, 18 dam failures have occurred within Washington State, the latest occurring in 2010 in Snohomish County when a waste pond failed. The two most severe of these dam failures took the lives of 9 people total. The first incident occurred in 1932 near North Bend, when a slide caused water to back up, and the second failure happened in 1976 near Auburn when a surge in flow caused by increased discharge from Mud Mountain Dam and removal of flashboards at Diversion Dam killed two children playing in the White River. Grant County has been the subject of three dam failures, none of which are discussed on the Department of Ecology’s current report for dam failures in Washington. The three failures include the following incidents: 1. April 1956, the Timm Brother Dam failed after efforts to enlarge the spillway were unsuccessful. The dam remains shut down. 2. February 1957, the T. Claude Bennett Dam failed when the spillway could not handle overflow, resulting in flooding within the town of Wilson Creek. 3. July 1995, the CSC Orchard Dam failed and flooded one residence and one manufactured home. Additionally, in 2014 a large crack formed on the Wanapum Dam, operated by the Grant County Public Utility District. The crack posed a serious threat but did not ultimately lead to dam failure. Grant County PUD was able to repair the crack. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 44 10.2.2 Location According to Washington’s Dam Safety Program, there are 64 dams in Grant County. The dams classified as hazardous dams are listed in Table 10-1. Twelve of the dams within Grant County are operated by federal agencies, and the remainder are under the jurisdiction of the state or local municipality, or privately owned. Table 10-1. Grant County Hazardous Dams. Dam Name Dam Type Purpose Normal Storage Qty in Acre-Ft Maximum Storage Qty in Acre-ft Hazard Category Grand Coulee Dam Concrete Concrete Gravity Flood control Hydroelectricity Irrigation Navigation Recreation 9,562,000 9,562,000 1A Banks Lake North Dam Rock Fill Earth Fill Flood Control Hydroelectricity Irrigation Navigation 1,275,000 1,275,000 1A Dry Falls Dam and Powerplant Rock Fill Earth Fill Flood Control Hydroelectricity Irrigation Navigation 1,275,000 1,275,000 1A O’Sullivan Dam Earth Fill Flood control Hydroelectricity Irrigation Navigation 511,700 546,300 1A Priest Rapids Dam Concrete Gravity Earth Fill Hydroelectricity Recreation 222,000 222,600 1A Pinto Dam Earth Fill Flood control Irrigation Recreation 64,200 76,500 1A REC Silicon Wastewater Pond Earth Fill Water quality 184 220 1B Zirkle Partridge Ranch Dam Earth Fill Irrigation 19 24 1C P.E.C. Headworks Concrete Hydroelectricity Irrigation Recreation 511,700 511,700 2 Coulee City Wastewater Lagoon Earth Fill Water quality 111 172 2D Evans Desert Aire Pond Earth Fill Irrigation 65 71 2D Chiawana Frenchman Hills Dam Earth Fill Irrigation 29 31 2D Lawrence Orchards Dam Earth Fill Irrigation 27 31 2D Koehn Ranch Reservoir Earth Fill Irrigation 17 20 2D OB-3 Warden Digester Lagoon Earth Fill Water quality 78 95 2E Coulee City Wastewater Lagoon Cell 4 Earth Fill Water quality 38 56 2E Ingredion Process Water Lagoon Earth Fill Water quality 43 50 2E Quincy Aerated Lagoon No. 1 Earth Fill Water quality 6 10 2E Quincy Aerated Lagoon No. 2 Earth Fill Water quality 6 10 2E Source: Ecology 2020. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 45 10.2.3 Frequency Dam failure events are infrequent and usually coincide with events that cause them, such as earthquakes, landslides and excessive rainfall and snowmelt. Some dam failures can be caused by poor condition of the dam infrastructure. In Grant County, there are no high risk dams considered to be in poor condition by the state’s dam safety office. There is also a “residual risk” associated with dams. Residual risk is the risk that remains after safeguards have been implemented. For dams, the residual risk is associated with events beyond those that the facility was designed to withstand. However, the probability of any type of dam failure is low in today’s regulatory and dam safety oversight environment. 10.2.4 Severity Dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream. The Washington Dam Safety Program classifies dams and reservoirs in a three-tier hazard rating system (High, Significant, and Low) based solely on the potential consequences to downstream life and property that would result from a failure of the dam and sudden release of water (Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Web Site, 2011). An alpha-numeric code is used as an index of potential consequences in the downstream valley if a dam were to fail and release the reservoir: 1. High Hazard—A high-hazard means that if failure were to occur, the consequences likely would be a direct loss of human life and extensive property damage. All high-hazard dams must be properly designed and at all times responsibly maintained and operated. The Department of Ecology assigns three alpha-numeric codes to the High Hazard category with the following impact considered sufficient reason for assigning the high-hazard rating: 1A = Greater than 300 lives at risk; 1B= From 31-300 lives at risk; and 1C= From 7 to 30 lives at risk. An up-to-date Emergency Action Plan is a requirement for all owners of high-hazard dams. 2. Significant Hazard—Significant hazard dams are those whose failure would result in significant risk. The alpha-numeric code assigned to this hazard class is 2 or 2D= From 1 to 6 lives at risk, or 2E= no lives at risk, but significant economic and/or environmental risk. 3. Low Hazard—Low hazard dams typically are located in sparsely populated areas that would be largely unaffected by a breach of the dam. Although the dam and appurtenant works may be totally destroyed, damages to downstream property would be restricted to undeveloped land with minimal impacts to existing infrastructure. The Department of Ecology assigns the alpha- numeric hazard rating of 3= No lives at risk. The Dam Safety Office also classifies dams as High Hazard Potential, which are dams that meet certain criteria and qualify for FEMA’s High Hazard Potential Dam Grant program. No dams in Grant County meet the criteria to be considered High Hazard Potential, which requires the dam to have an unacceptable risk to the public among other factors. An unacceptable risk to the public is when a dam poses a risk to downstream lives and requires remediation or risk reduction measures due to inadequate design, construction methods, lack of maintenance, or poor operations. The US Army Corps of Engineers developed the classification system shown in Table 10-2 for the hazard potential of dam failures. The Corps of Engineers hazard rating system is based only on the potential consequences of a dam failure; neither system takes into account the probability of such failures. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 46 Table 10-2. Army Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification. Hazard Categorya Direct Loss of Lifeb Lifeline Lossesc Property Lossesd Environmental Lossese Low None (rural location, no permanent structures for human habitation) No disruption of services (cosmetic or rapidly repairable damage) Private agricultural lands, equipment, and isolated buildings Minimal incremental damage Significant Rural location, only transient or day-use facilities Disruption of essential facilities and access Major public and private facilities Major mitigation required High Certain (one or more) extensive residential, commercial, or industrial development Disruption of essential facilities and access Extensive public and private facilities Extensive mitigation cost or impossible to mitigate a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project. b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time. c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption; for example, loss of critical medical facilities or access to them. d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply. e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs. Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 1995 10.2.5 Warning Time Warning time for dam failure varies depending on the cause of the failure. In events of extreme precipitation or massive snowmelt, evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure due to earthquake, there may be no warning time. A dam’s structural type also affects warning time. Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted or the breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith sections are forced apart by escaping water. The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Grant County and its planning partners have established protocols for flood warning and response to imminent dam failure in the flood warning portion of its adopted emergency operations plan. These protocols are tied to the emergency action plans (EAPs) created by the dam owners. 10.3 Secondary Hazards Dam failure can cause severe downstream flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other potential secondary hazards of dam failure are landslides around the reservoir perimeter, bank erosion on the rivers, and destruction of downstream habitat. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 47 10.4 Climate Change Impacts Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. Throughout the west, communities downstream of dams are already increases in stream flows from earlier releases from dams. Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways.” Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design failures,” result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures. 10.4.1 Environment Reservoirs held behind dams affect many ecological aspects of a river. River topography and dynamics depend on a wide range of flows, but rivers below dams often experience long periods of very stable flow conditions or saw-tooth flow patterns caused by releases followed by no releases. Water releases from dams usually contain very little suspended sediment; this can lead to scouring of river beds and banks. The environment would be exposed to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce many foreign elements into local waterways. This could result in destruction of downstream habitat and could have detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species such as salmon. 10.5 Vulnerability 10.5.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. The vulnerable population also includes those who would not have adequate warning from a television or radio emergency warning system. 10.5.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the dam inundation area. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 48 and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas. 10.5.3 Environment The environment would be vulnerable to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce foreign elements into local waterways, resulting in destruction of downstream habitat and detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species such as Coho salmon. The extent of the vulnerability of the environment is the same as the exposure of the environment. 10.6 Future Trends in Development Land use in the planning area is directed by comprehensive plans adopted under Washington’s Growth Management Act and general planning laws specific to each jurisdiction. In general, land use changes can modify natural hydrology patterns. Increased impervious surfaces, such as roads and buildings can lead to faster runoff, which may strain the dam’s capacity and increase the risk of failure. As populations grow and urban development continues to expand, more communities and infrastructure are located downstream of dams. This will lead to an increase in the exposure of people and property to potential dam failure. In addition, population growth can drive changes in water demand and usage. These changes may modify the reservoir’s storage capacity, which can impact the dam’s stability. The five major dams in Grant County are: Grant Coulee, Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Pinto, and Dryfalls. Each dam has a Dam Safety Plan on file with the State and County. However, dam failure is currently not addressed as a standalone flood hazard in comprehensive plans. Municipal planning partners have established comprehensive policies regarding sound land use in identified flood hazard areas. Most of the areas vulnerable to the more severe impacts from dam failure intersect the mapped flood hazard areas. Flood-related policies in the comprehensive plans may help to reduce the risk associated with the dam failure hazard for all future development in the planning area. 10.7 Scenario An earthquake in the region could lead to liquefaction of soils around a dam. This could occur without warning during any time of the day. A human-caused failure such as a terrorist attack also could trigger a catastrophic failure of a dam that impacts the planning area. While the probability of dam failure is very low, the probability of flooding associated with changes to dam operational parameters in response to climate change is higher. Dam designs and operations are developed based on hydrographs with historical record. If these hydrographs experience significant changes over time due to the impacts of climate change, the design and operations may no longer be valid for the changed condition. This could have significant impacts on dams that provide flood control. Specified release rates and impound thresholds may have to be changed. This would result in increased discharges downstream of these facilities, thus increasing the probability and severity of flooding. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 49 10.8 Issues The most significant issue associated with dam failure involves the properties and populations in the inundation zones. Flooding as a result of a dam failure would significantly impact these areas. There is often limited warning time for dam failure. These events are frequently associated with other natural hazard events such as earthquakes, landslides or severe weather, which limits their predictability and compounds the hazard. Important issues associated with dam failure hazards include the following: • Federally regulated dams have an adequate level of oversight and sophistication in the development of emergency action plans for public notification in the unlikely event of failure. However, the protocol for notification of downstream citizens of imminent failure needs to be tied to local emergency response planning. • Mapping for federally regulated dams is already required and available; however, mapping for non-federal-regulated dams that estimates inundation depths is needed to better assess the risk associated with dam failure from these facilities. • Most dam failure mapping required at federal levels requires determination of the probable maximum flood. While the probable maximum flood represents a worst- case scenario, it is generally the event with the lowest probability of occurrence. For non-federal-regulated dams, mapping of dam failure scenarios that are less extreme than the probable maximum flood but have a higher probability of occurrence can be valuable to emergency managers and community officials downstream of these facilities. This type of mapping can illustrate areas potentially impacted by more frequent events to support emergency response and preparedness. • The concept of residual risk associated with structural flood control projects should be considered in the design of capital projects and the application of land use regulations. • Addressing security concerns and the need to inform the public of the risk associated with dam failure is a challenge for public officials. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 50 Chapter 11 DROUGHT 11.1 General Background Drought is a prolonged period of dryness severe enough to reduce soil moisture, water and snow levels below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal and economic systems. Droughts are a natural part of the climate cycle. In the past century, Washington State has experienced a number of drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season – 1928 to 1932, 1992 to 1994, and 1996 to 1997. More recently, the Department of Ecology issued an Order and Determination of Drought Conditions in 2021, declaring most of the state to be in a drought emergency. Washington has a statutory definition of drought (Revised Code of Washington Chapter 43.83B.400). According to state law, an area is in a drought condition when: • The water supply for the area is below 75% of normal. • Water uses and users in the area will likely incur undue hardships because of the water shortage. Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, depending upon its severity, although it typically does not result in loss of life or damage to property, as do other disasters caused by natural hazards. The National Drought Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts: • Agricultural—Drought threatens crops that rely on natural precipitation. • Water supply—Drought threatens supplies of water for irrigated crops and for communities. • Fire hazard—Drought increases the threat of wildfires from dry conditions in forest and rangelands. In Washington, where hydroelectric power plants generate nearly three-quarters of the electricity produced, drought also threatens the supply of electricity. Unlike most natural hazards, droughts normally occur slowly but last a long time. Drought conditions occur every few years in Washington. On average, the nationwide annual impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They are estimated to be between $6 Billion and $8 Billion annually in the United States and impact primarily the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts. Drought effects groundwater sources slower than surface water supplies, although groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought results in a slower replenishment of groundwater supplies and can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity and wells going dry. Shallow wells are more vulnerable to drought than deep wells. About 16,000 drinking water systems in Washington get water from the ground; these systems serve about 5.2 million people. DEFINITIONS Drought—The cumulative impacts of several dry years on water users. It can include deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies and generally impacts health, well- being, and quality of life. Hydrological Drought— Deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. Socioeconomic Drought— Drought impacts on health, well- being, and quality of life. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 51 Reduced replenishment of groundwater also affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams when steam flows are lowest. Droughts impact all people within affected areas, either directly or indirectly. Less available water for irrigation leads to farmers not able to plant crops or the failure of a crop yield, ultimately decreasing the economic stability of farm workers and related employment. A large portion of Washington state’s energy comes from hydroelectric plants, so prolonged drought could mean a rise in cost for electricity. With increased utility rates, other water or electricity dependent industries may be forced to shut down part or all of their facilities, including recreational companies that use water like swimming pools. 11.1.1 Probability of Future Occurrence Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is not the result of a singular process, and instead is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature. Influential forces include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air resulting in less precipitation. Scientists currently do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations. Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Anomalies of precipitation and temperature may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depends on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of weather systems on the global scale. In temperate regions, including Washington, current long-range forecasts of drought have limited reliability. In the tropics, empirical relationships have been demonstrated between precipitation and El Niño events, but few such relationships have been demonstrated above the 30º north latitude. Meteorologists do not believe that reliable forecasts are attainable at this time a season or more in advance for temperate regions. Based on Washington’s history with drought from 1895 to 1995, the state as a whole can expect severe or extreme drought at least 5% of the time in the future. All of Eastern Washington, except for the Cascade Mountain’s eastern foothills, can expect severe or extreme drought 10 to 15% of the time. The east slopes of the Cascades can expect severe or extreme drought from 5 to 10% of the time. 11.2 Hazard Profile Droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation resulting from an unusual weather pattern. If the weather pattern lasts a short time (a few weeks or a couple months), the drought is considered short- term. If the weather pattern becomes entrenched and the precipitation deficits last for several months or years, the drought is considered to be long-term. It is possible for a region to experience a long-term circulation pattern that produces drought, and to have short- term changes in this long-term pattern that result in short-term wet spells. Likewise, it is possible for a long-term wet circulation pattern to be interrupted by short-term weather spells that result in short-term drought. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 52 11.2.1 Past Events In the past century, Washington State has experienced a number of drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season – 1928 to 1932, 1992 to 1994, and 1996 to 1997. The droughts of 1977 and 2001 are the first and second worst droughts in state history, respectively. • June-August 1922 – From June 10 to August 20, the statewide precipitation average was only .10 inches. • April 1934-March 1937 – The longest drought in the region's history. The driest periods were April-August 1934; September-December 1935; and July-January 1936-1937. • 1977 Drought – The cumulative impact led to widespread water shortages and severe water conservation measures throughout the state. Storms during the first three weeks of May 1977 resulted in slight increases to the amount of water in streams. Cool temperatures slowed the melting of mountain snow, causing stream flows to continue to decline. An estimated 70+ public and private drinking-water operations reported water- supply problems. Wheat and cattle were the most seriously affected agricultural products in Washington. The Federal Power Commission ordered public utilities on the Columbia River to release water to help fish survive. Dryland and irrigated agriculture experienced in excess of $400 million loss because of the drought conditions. The 1977 Drought resulted in Declaration Number WA3037. • 2001 Drought – On March 14, 2001, Gov. Gary Locke authorized the Washington Department of Ecology to declare a statewide drought emergency. Unlike other natural disasters, droughts normally occur slowly but last a long time. By most standards, the 2001 drought came on fairly rapidly. Between November 2000 and March 2001, most of the state’s rainfall and snowpack totals were only about 60% of normal. The 2001 event was as a result of warm weather melting snow pack into streams a month earlier than normal, thus increasing the amount of water in streams earlier than normal. Nine large utility companies statewide advised the Washington State Department of Health that they were highly vulnerable to the drought. As a result of the 2001 drought, 90,000 acres of agricultural land were taken out of production; thousands of acres of orchards were unused, and the sugar beet industry was out of production. • 2021 Drought – After a historically dry spring and summer and a record-breaking heat wave across the state, the Department of Ecology declared a statewide drought emergency excluding only Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. By September of 2021, 29% of Washington was in ‘exceptional drought,’ the worst drought category recognized by the US Drought Monitor. While no Presidentially Declared drought situations have impacted Grant County as reported by FEMA or the Spatial Hazard Event Loss Data for United States (SHELDUS), Grant County has historically been impacted by the drought conditions occurring three or four times during any 10- year period. The farmers and ranchers experience economic failures that occur with the drought and the economic stability of the entire county is affected. Additionally, drought conditions within Grant County tend to breed pestilence, and the effects of the grasshoppers on irrigated land has historically become a major problem economically. The drought conditions also increase the demand for irrigation and begin to deplete underground aquifers as deep as 100 feet. Aquifers are important to the communities and families in Grant County as they provide water supplies and support the lives of the County’s population. Fire dangers, which are extremely high in the normal, dry seasons, become more and more hazardous in drought conditions. Loss of crops and much needed rangeland occurs and control of fires strain the budgets of all fire districts. This increases manpower and equipment use and equipment failure. Power supply is also affected by depletion of hydroelectric power water supplies in storage reservoirs. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 53 11.2.2 Location The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure drought impacts and severity and to map their extent and locations: • The Palmer Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale and is used to quantify drought’s impacts on agriculture during the growing season. • The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale. • The Palmer Drought Index (PDI) measures the duration and intensity of long-term drought- inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during a given month is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Weather patterns can change quickly from a long-term drought pattern to a long-term wet pattern, and the PDI can respond fairly rapidly. Figure 11-1 shows the index for March 2022. Source: NDMC 2022 Figure 11-1. Palmer Drought Severity Index. The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop and it takes longer to recover from them. The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI), another long-term index, was developed to quantify hydrological effects. The PHDI responds more slowly to changing conditions than the PDSI. Figure 11-3 shows this index for March 2011. While the Palmer indices consider precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff, the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) considers only precipitation. In the SPI, an index of zero indicates the median NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 54 precipitation amount; the index is negative for drought and positive for wet conditions. The SPI is computed for time scales ranging from one month to 24 months. 11.2.3 Frequency The Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan determined that from the period of 1895 to 1995, Grant County experienced serious or extreme drought at least 10-15% of the time. Figure 11-2 from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) illustrates the frequency of drought within Grant County from 1895 to 2022 (drought shown in the yellow to brown color scale). Figure 11-2. Drought History of Grant County. 11.2.4 Severity The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. Droughts are not usually associated with direct impacts on people or property, but they can have significant impacts on agriculture, which can impact people indirectly. When measuring the severity of droughts, analysts typically look at economic impacts on a planning area. Figure 11-3 shows the severity of the 2021 drought. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 55 Source: Bumbaco, et all 2022 Figure 11-3. 2021 Drought Severity. 11.2.5 Warning Time Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time. Only generalized warning can take place due to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions. 11.3 Secondary Hazards The secondary hazard most commonly associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends. 11.4 Climate Change Impacts Research conducted by the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington indicates that the temperature of Eastern Washington is increasing. As temperatures increase there will be less water stored as ice and snow. This reduction may not result in a net change in annual precipitation, but it will result in lower late spring and summer river flows. Accordingly, there will be increased competition between power generation, sport fishing and environmentalists, and farmers dependent on irritation. The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are unknown, but global water NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 56 resources are already experiencing the following stresses without climate change: • Growing populations • Increased competition for available water • Poor water quality • Environmental claims • Uncertain reserved water rights • Groundwater overdraft • Aging urban water infrastructure With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting. From 1987 to 1989, losses from drought in the US totaled $39 billion (OTA, 1993). More frequent extreme events such as droughts could end up being more cause for concern than the long-term change in temperature and precipitation averages. The best advice to water resource managers regarding climate change is to start addressing current stresses on water supplies and build flexibility and robustness into any system. Flexibility helps to ensure a quick response to changing conditions, and robustness helps people prepare for and survive the worst conditions. With this approach to planning, water system managers will be better able to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 11.5 Exposure All people, property and environments in the Grant County planning area would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. The 2018 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Core Plan calculates the drought risk index (WaSRI-D) for each county by considering the following information: 1. Area exposure 2. Population exposure 3. Vulnerable population exposure. All of Grant County is considered exposed to drought risk, as is 100% of the county’s population. The NIDIS provides statistics for drought conditions. As of December 2022, the NIDIS estimates the following exposure to drought: • 106,763 acres of wheat • 91,752 acres of hay • 29,863 acres of corn • 31,255 cattle • 659 sheep As of October 2022, Grant County has 236,944 acres of wheat, hay, and corn cropland acres in drought conditions. On average, 59% of streamflow sites in Grant County are below the normal (NIDIS, 2022). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 57 11.6 Vulnerability Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provide services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental, and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand. When considering economic and social vulnerability to drought, the following inputs are important to consider: 1. Acreage of irrigated cropland. The acreage of the county’s irrigated cropland must be in top 20 in the state. 2. Percentage of harvested cropland that is irrigated. The percentage of the county’s harvested cropland that is irrigated must be in top 20 in the state. 3. Value of agricultural products. 4. Population growth greater than the state average. 5. A County’s inability to endure the economic conditions of a drought, based on the county’s median household income being less than 75% of the state median income of $51,749 in 2005. As summarized in Table 11-1, Grant County meets the five criteria and is considered to be vulnerable to drought. Table 11-1. Grant County Vulnerability to Drought. Criterion Value for Grant County Meets Drought Vulnerability Criterion? Irrigated Cropland (acres) 448,040 Statewide Ranking for Irrigated Cropland Area 1 Yes Percent of Harvested Cropland That Is Irrigated 43% Statewide Ranking for Irrigated Cropland Percentage 5 Yes Market Value of Crops $1.9 Billion Statewide Ranking for Market Value of Crops 2 Yes Population Growth, 2000 – 2006 7.9% Yes Median Household Income $59,165 Yes Source: USDA 2017; Census 2022 11.6.1 Population The planning partnership has the ability to minimize any impacts on residents and water consumers in the county should several consecutive dry years occur. No significant life or health impacts are anticipated as a result of drought within the planning area. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 58 11.6.2 Property No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some structures may become vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Droughts can also have significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. However, these impacts are not considered critical in planning for impacts from the drought hazard. 11.6.3 Critical Facilities Critical facilities as defined for this plan will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant. 11.6.4 Environment Environmental losses from drought are associated with damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from this temporary aberration. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity. Although environmental losses are difficult to quantify, growing public awareness and concern for environmental quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects. 11.6.5 Economic Impact Economic impact will be largely associated with industries that use water or depend on water for their business. For example, landscaping businesses were affected in the droughts of the past as the demand for service significantly declined because landscaping was not watered. The largest industry in Grant County where drought would produce serious economic impacts is the agricultural sector. Grant County is one of the leading agricultural counties in terms of crop sales, ranked 11th nationally in the 2018 Census of Agriculture. As of 2017, 1,041,582 acres of land are being used for farming, 43% of which are irrigated for cropland. A decrease in water availability would likely impact the market value of farming products sold, which in 2017 was worth $1.9 Billion. Agriculture, along with forestry and fishing, is one of the top five largest employing sectors in the county, amounting to 23.5% of the total employment shares. Furthermore, Grant County is responsible for 20% of Washington State’s agriculture sales (US Department of Agriculture, 2017). 11.7 Future Trends in Development As populations grow, the demand for water also increases. The increased demand for domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial purposes can exacerbate water scarcity during drought periods and may put further stress on water resources. Drought can also exacerbate economic effects by NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 59 causing crop or pasture loss and reduce hydroelectric power generation. In Grant County, where most domestic water is sourced from a declining aquifer, droughts can affect critical facilities by reducing the amount of water to fight fires, reduce water available for commercial and industrial uses, or require expensive retrofits to water systems. Drought also increases the risk of wildfire to areas experiencing growth. Each municipal planning partner in this effort has an established comprehensive plan that includes policies directing land use and dealing with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. These plans provide the capability at the local municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of drought. 11.8 Scenario An extreme multiyear drought more intense than the 1977 drought could impact the region with little warning. Combinations of low precipitation and unusually high temperatures could occur over several consecutive years. Intensified by such conditions, extreme wildfires could break out throughout Grant County, increasing the need for water. Surrounding communities, also in drought conditions, could increase their demand for water supplies relied upon by the planning partnership, causing social and political conflicts. If such conditions persisted for several years, the economy of Grant County could experience setbacks, especially in water dependent industries. 11.9 Issues The planning team has identified the following drought-related issues: • The probability of increased drought frequencies and durations due to climate change. • The need to identify and develop alternative water supplies for municipal users and agricultural users that are dependent on a depleting aquifer. • Consider utilizing groundwater recharge techniques to stabilize the groundwater supply. • Increase and improve the promotion of active water conservation even during non-drought periods. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 60 CHAPTER 12 EARTHQUAKE 12.1 General Background 12.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in the earth’s crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds. Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest have been studied extensively. It is generally agreed that three source zones exist for Pacific Northwest quakes: a shallow (crustal) zone; the Cascadia Subduction Zone; and a deep, intraplate “Benioff” zone. These are shown in Figure 12-1. More than 90% of Pacific Northwest earthquakes occur along the boundary between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. Active faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). Potentially active faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. Although there are probably still some unrecognized active faults, nearly all the movement between the two plates, and therefore the majority of the seismic hazards, are on the well-known active faults. Faults are more likely to have earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve accumulating tectonic stresses. A direct relationship exists between a fault’s length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. In some areas, smaller, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant as a result of the fault’s proximity to the area. In contrast, large regional faults can generate great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, may result in only moderate shaking in the area. DEFINITIONS Earthquake—The shaking of the ground caused by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the earth or a contact zone between tectonic plates. Epicenter—The point on the earth’s surface directly above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The location of an earthquake is commonly described by the geographic position of its epicenter and by its focal depth. Fault—A fracture in the earth’s crust along which two blocks of the crust have slipped with respect to each other. Focal Depth—The depth from the earth’s surface to the hypocenter. Hypocenter—The region underground where an earthquake’s energy originates Liquefaction—Loosely packed, water- logged sediments losing their strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 61 Figure 12-1. Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest. 12.1.2 Earthquake Classifications Earthquakes are classified according to the amount of energy released as measured by magnitude or intensity scales. Currently, the most commonly used scales are the moment magnitude (Mw) scale, and the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Estimates of moment magnitude roughly match the local magnitude scale (ML) commonly called the Richter scale. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike other magnitude scales, it does not saturate at the upper end. That is, there is no value beyond which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment magnitude is now the most often used estimate of large earthquake magnitudes. Table 12-1 presents a classification of earthquakes according to their magnitude. Table 12-2 compares the moment magnitude scale to the modified Mercalli intensity scale. 12.1.3 Ground Motion Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, then summing the annual probabilities over the time period of interest. The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are the horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil or rock type. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 62 Table 12-1. Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity. Magnitude (Mw) Intensity (Modified Mercalli) Description 1.0 – 3.0 I I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions 3.0 – 3.9 II – III II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. 4.0 – 4.9 IV – V IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building. Standing cars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. 5.0 – 5.9 VI – VII VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight in well- build ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures. Some chimneys broken. 6.0 – 6.9 VII – IX VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. 7.0 and higher X – XII X. Some well-build wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI. Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” (e.g. single-family dwellings). Longer period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Table 12-3 lists damage potential by PGA factors compared to the Mercalli scale. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 63 Table 12-2. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison. Mercalli Scale Potential Damage Estimated PGA I None 0.017 II-III None 0.017 IV None 0.014-0.039 V Very Light 0.039-0.092 VI None to Slight; USGS-Light 0.02-0.05 Unreinforced Masonry-Stair Step Cracks; Damage to Chimneys; Threshold of Damage 0.04-0.08 0.06-0.07 0.06-0.13 0.092-0.18 VII Slight-Moderate; USGS-Moderate 0.05-0.10 Unreinforced Masonry-Significant; Cracking of parapets 0.08-0.16 0.10-0.15 Masonry may fail; Threshold of Structural Damage 0.1 0.18-0.34 VIII Moderate-Extensive; USGS: Moderate-Heavy 0.10-0.20 Unreinforced Masonry-Extensive Cracking; fall of parapets and gable ends 0.16-0.32 0.25-0.30 0.13-0.25 0.2 0.35-0.65 IX Extensive-Complete; USGS-Heavy 0.20-0.50 Structural collapse of some un-reinforced masonry buildings; walls out of plane. Damage to seismically designed structures 0.32-0.55 0.50-0.55 0.26-0.44 0.3 0.65-1.24 X Complete ground failures; USGS- Very Heavy (X+); Structural collapse of most un- reinforced masonry buildings; notable damage to seismically designed structures; ground failure 0.50-1.00 12.1.4 Effect of Soil Types The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking, distance from the source of the quake, and liquefaction, a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction generally occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils. A program called the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 12-3 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 64 Table 12-3. NEHRP Soil Classification System. NEHRP Soil Type Description Mean Shear Velocity to 30 m (m/s) A Hard Rock 1,500 B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500 C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760 D Stiff Soil 180-360 E Soft Clays < 180 F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick) N/A 12.2 Hazard Profile Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes and they may also occur as a series of tremors over several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because the earthquakes shake, damage, or demolish buildings and other structures. After an earthquake, disruption of communications, electrical power supplies, gas, and sewer and water lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam failures, landslides, or releases of hazardous material, compounding their disastrous effects. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong and damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, large regional faults can generate earthquakes of great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area. 12.2.1 Past Events Table 12-4 lists past seismic events that have either occurred in the planning area or have in some manner impacted the region. Many of the earthquakes which occur in Eastern Washington occur in clusters, mostly near the Saddle Mountains in folded volcanic rocks, which were extruded in southeastern Washington from 16.5 to 6 million years ago. Table 12-4. Historical Earthquakes Impacting the Planning Area (Over M 3). Year Magnitude Fault Location 8/13/2022 3.05 Bickleton 11/18/2019 3.48 Hartline 6/16/2019 3.24 Royal City 4/29/2018 3.32 Cle Elum 10/12/2017 3.42 Bickleton 7/24/2017 3.33 Waterville 2/26/2017 3.15 Cle Elum 10/10/2016 3.08 Kittitas 9/21/2015 4.2 Grand Coulee Dam 3/25/2010 3.2 Moses Lake 2/28/2001 6.8 Olympia (Nisqually) NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 65 Year Magnitude Fault Location 6/10/2001 5.0 Matlock 7/3/1999 5.8 Satsop 1/31/1999 3.1 Grand Coulee Dam 6/24/1997 4.6 Wilson Creek/Grand Coulee Dam Area 5/3/1996 5.5 Duvall 5/10/1989 4.4 Grand Coulee Dam 2/14/1981 5.5 Mt. St. Helens 12/20/1973 4.4 Othello 4/29/1965 6.6 Tacoma (Sea Tac) 8/5/1959 5.5 Eastside of North Cascades 1/13/1949 7.0 Olympia 1872 7.4 North Cascades, near Entiat Source: PSSN, 2022 12.2.2 Location Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood, landslide, or wildfire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components: • Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations) • Liquefaction (soil instability) • Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically). Mapping shows the impacts of these components and assesses the risk of earthquakes within the planning area. While the impacts from each of these components can build upon each other during an earthquake event, the mapping looks at each component individually. This assessment includes shake maps, soil maps, and liquefaction maps. Shake Maps A shake map is a representation of ground shaking produced by an earthquake. The information it presents is different from the earthquake magnitude and epicenter that are released after an earthquake because shake maps focus on the ground shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than the parameters describing the earthquake source. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth’s crust. A shake map shows the extent and variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. Two types of shake map are typically generated from the data: • A probabilistic seismic hazard map shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree could occur. The maps are expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, such as the 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Figure 12-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 66 demonstrates this probability across Washington State. This level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. Maps 12-4 and 12-5 show the estimated ground motion for the 100-year and 500-year probabilistic earthquakes in Grant County. • Earthquake scenario maps describe the expected ground motions and effects of hypothetical large earthquakes for a region. Maps of these scenarios can be used to support all phases of emergency management. One scenario was selected for this plan: Map 12-3 shows the estimated ground motion for a 7.3M event on the Saddle Mountain Fault. NEHRP Soil Maps NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain low-magnitude ground shaking without much effect. The areas that are most commonly affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. Map 12-1 shows NEHRP soil classifications in Grant County. According to Hazard Exposure Assessment conducted in 2022, there are 69 Tier II Facilities located within Grant County with NEHRP Soil D. In addition, there are 6 Tier II Facilities with soil type D-E. There are no facilities that have type E or F. Liquefaction Maps Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground liquefies, sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D, E and F are also susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come to the surface through cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with it, creating sand boils. Map 12-2 shows the liquefaction susceptibility in Grant County. The 69 Tier II Facilities with soil type D have a low to moderate risk of liquefaction; the 6 facilities with NEHRP soil type D-E have a moderate to high risk of liquefaction. 12.2.3 Frequency More than 1,000 earthquakes are recorded annually in Washington State. A dozen or more earthquakes cause shaking and occasional damage. While most of the state’s earthquakes occur in Western Washington, Washington State’s largest earthquakes of 1872 occurred east of the Cascade Crest near Entiat. This find adds to the growing evidence that Central and Eastern Washington may be more earthquake prone that previously thought. Those earthquakes occurring in Grant County historically have not caused damage and are considered more than negligible. The areas near the Frenchman Hills and Saddle Mountain, as well as the areas near the Beezley Hills and upper Banks Lake regions have recorded quakes since 1840. 12.2.4 Severity The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude. Intensity represents the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. The USGS has created ground motion maps based on current information about several fault zones. These maps show the PGA NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 67 that has a certain probability (2% or 10% of being exceeded in a 50-year period. The PGA is measured in numbers of g’s (the acceleration associated with gravity). Figure 12-2 shows the PGAs with a 2% exceedance chance in 50 years in Washington. Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake. It is determined by the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments. Whereas intensity varies depending on location with respect to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude is represented by a single, instrumentally determined value for each earthquake event. In simplistic terms, the severity of an earthquake event can be measured in the following terms: • How hard did the ground shake? • How did the ground move? (Horizontally or vertically) • How stable was the soil? • What is the fragility of the built environment in the area of impact? Grant County could be severely impacted by an earthquake which effects any of its 64 dams currently listed with the Department of Ecology, including the Grand Coulee Dam. Grand Coulee Dam is one of the largest concrete structures in the world and is gravity fed from the Columbia River, maintaining three hydroelectric power plants and providing irrigation to agricultural lands within the planning area. Power generation could be greatly impacted by an earthquake occurring within the planning area as the potential exists for the collapse of transmission lines, or even a potential breach of the dam itself. This would have far reaching implications and could potentially impact a geographic area much greater than the focus of this plan. This would have disastrous effects on local and regional economies, and could also mean that recovery, repair, and rebuilding time for the planning Figure 12-2. PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 68 area would be very lengthy. In addition, large intensity quakes could cause bridge failures, interrupt transportation routes, and create accidents on rail systems. 12.2.5 Warning Time Currently, no reliable ways exist to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research efforts are focused on warning systems that use low energy waves that precede major earthquakes, in an attempt to provide potential warning systems with These approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. The warning time is very short but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a hazardous material they are working with, or shut down a computer system. 12.3 Secondary Hazards Earthquakes cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often because of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water-saturated sands, silts, or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding-like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and people. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events and the impacts of their eventual failures can be considered secondary risks for earthquakes. 12.4 Climate Change Impacts The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity. As ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are shifted on the earth’s crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre-glacier shape, it could cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes (NASA, 2004). Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms could experience liquefaction during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events. There are currently no models available to estimate these impacts. 12.5 Exposure 12.5.1 Population The entire population of Grant County is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors, including the age and construction type of the structures people live in, the soil type their homes are constructed on, their proximity to fault location, etc. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 69 from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. 12.5.2 Property The Grant County Assessor estimates that there are 35,092 buildings in Grant County, with a total assessed value of $17.6 billion. Since all structures in the planning area could be susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this total represents the county-wide property exposure to seismic events. Most of the buildings (73%) are residential. The Washington State Building Code Council identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development in Washington. Using these time periods, the planning team used HAZUS to identify the number of structures within the County by date of construction. Table 12-5 shows the results of this analysis. Table 12-5. Age of Structures in Grant County. The number of structures does not reflect the number of total housing units, as many multi- family units and attached housing units are reported as one structure. Approximately 33% of the planning area’s structures were constructed after the Uniform Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions. Approximately 2% were built before 1933 when there were no building permits, inspections, or seismic standards. Soft-Story Buildings A soft-story building is a multi-story building with one or more floors that are “soft” due to structural design. If a building has a floor that is 70% less stiff than the floor above it, it is considered a soft-story building. This soft story creates a major weak point in an earthquake. Since soft stories are typically associated with retail spaces and parking garages, they are often on the lower stories of a building. When they collapse, they can take the whole building down with them, causing serious structural damage that may render the structure totally unusable. Time Period Number of Structures in Grant County Significance of Timeframe Pre-1933 854 Before 1933, there were no explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State law did not require local governments to have building officials or issue building permits. 1933-1940 893 In 1940, the first strong motion recording was made. 1941-1960 8,049 In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on recommended earthquake provisions. 1961-1975 3,709 In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements. 1976-1994 7,637 In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic safety. 1995-Present 13,950 Seismic code is currently enforced. Total 35,092 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 70 These floors can be especially dangerous in earthquakes, because they cannot cope with the lateral forces caused by the swaying of the building during a quake. As a result, the soft story may fail, causing what is known as a soft story collapse. Soft-story collapse is one of the leading causes of earthquake damage to private residences. Exposure associated with soft story construction in the planning area is not currently known. This type of data will need to be generated to support future risk assessments of the earthquake hazard. 12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities in Grant County are exposed to the earthquake hazard. Table 12-11 lists the number of each type of facility by jurisdiction. Hazardous materials releases can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation-related incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding environment. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment. 12.5.4 Environment Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment. Earthquake-induced landslides can significantly impact surrounding habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. This can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. There is a possibility of streams fed by groundwater drying up because of changes in underlying geology. 12.6 Vulnerability Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using a Level 2 HAZUS-MH analysis. Once the location and size of a hypothetical earthquake are identified, HAZUS-MH estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings damaged, the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number of people displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and clean up. 12.6.1 Population Three population groups are particularly vulnerable to earthquake hazards: • Linguistically Isolated Populations—Approximately 37% of residents older than five years speak a language other than English at home. Problems arise when there is an urgent need to inform non-English speaking residents of an earthquake event. They are vulnerable because of difficulties in understanding hazard-related information from predominantly English-speaking media and government agencies. • Population Below Poverty Level—Almost 14% of county residents are listed as being in poverty. These households may lack the financial resources to improve their homes to prevent or mitigate earthquake damage. Poorer residents are also less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses in earthquakes. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 71 • Population Over 65 Years Old—Over 14,000 residents in the county are over 65 years old. This is about 14.3% of all residents in Grant County. This population group is vulnerable because they are more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be available due to isolation caused by earthquakes. Elderly residents also have more difficulty leaving their homes during earthquake events and could be stranded in dangerous situations. The HAZUS analysis estimated impacts on persons and households in the planning area for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the one scenario event. Table 12-6 summarizes the results. Table 12-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households. Scenario Number of Displaced Households Number of Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter 100-Year Earthquake 1 1 500-Year Earthquake 32 25 Saddle Mountain Earthquake 226 263 12.6.2 Property Property losses were estimated through the Level 2 HAZUS-MH analysis for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the one scenario event. Tables 12-7 and 12-8 show the results for two types of property loss: • Structural loss, representing damage to building structures • Non-structural loss, representing the value of lost contents and inventory, relocation, income loss, rental loss, and wage loss. • The total of the two types of losses is also shown in the tables. A summary of the property- related loss results is as follows: • For a 100-year probabilistic earthquake, the estimated damage potential is $5.7 million, or 0.1% of the total assessed value for the planning area. • For a 500-year earthquake, the estimated damage potential is $60.2 million, or 0.8% of the total assessed value for the planning area. • For a 7.3-magnitude event on the Saddle Mountain Fault, the estimated damage potential is $319 million, or 1.81% of the total assessed value for the planning area. Table 12-7. Earthquake Building Loss Potential – Probabilistic. Estimated Earthquake Loss Value 100- Year Probabilistic Earthquake 500- Year Probabilistic Earthquake Jurisdiction Structural Non- Structural Total Structural Non- Structural Total Ephrata Area $345,826 $57,042 $402,868 $5,086,051 $1,497,850 $6,583,901 Moses Lake Area $1,914,608 $351,794 $2,266,402 $30,730,293 $9,714,006 $40,444,299 Quincy Area $415,526 $80,455 $495,980 $4,991,240 $1,482,944 $6,474,184 North of I-90 $1,041,336 $145,360 $1,186,697 $13,789,068 $3,439,838 $17,228,906 South of I-90 $964,400 $127,445 $1,091,845 $12,752,190 $3,207,792 $15,959,982 Total $4,681,695 $762,096 $5,443,791 $67,348,842 $19,342,430 $86,691,272 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 72 Table 12-8. Earthquake Building Loss Potential – Scenario Event. The HAZUS-MH analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake-caused debris in the planning area for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the one scenario event, as summarized in Table 12-9. Table 12-9. Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris. Type Debris to Be Removed (tons) 100-Year Earthquake 5.20 500-Year Earthquake 27.08 Saddle Mountain Scenario 167.30 12.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Level of Damage HAZUS-MH classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a vulnerability category to each critical facility in the planning area except hazmat facilities and “other infrastructure” facilities, for which there are no established damage functions. The analysis was performed for the 100-year event and the Saddle Mountain Fault scenario, which have, respectively, the highest probability of occurrence and the largest potential impact on the planning area. The critical facilities listed in Tables 12-10 and 12-11 have a 10% or greater change of damage. Table 12-10. Critical Facility Vulnerability to 100-Year Earthquake Event. Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Medical and Health 4 0 0 0 0 Protective Functions 65 0 0 0 0 Schools 64 0 0 0 0 Transportation Systems 10 3 0 0 0 Bridges 364 0 0 0 0 Water Supply 2 0 0 0 0 Wastewater 4 0 0 0 0 Power 3 0 0 0 0 Communications 14 0 0 0 0 Total 530 3 0 0 0 Estimated Earthquake Loss Value 7.4 M Saddle Mountain Fault Jurisdiction Structural Non- Structural Total Ephrata Area $3,471,465 $387,405 $3,858,871 Moses Lake Area $47,141,696 $5,688,885 $52,830,580 Quincy Area $8,681,992 $846,489 $9,528,481 North of I-90 $12,256,755 $1,196,397 $13,453,152 South of I-90 $227,566,565 $12,201,635 $239,768,200 Total $299,118,473 $20,320,810 $319,439,284 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 73 Table 12-11. Critical Facility Vulnerability to Saddle Mountain Fault Scenario. Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Medical and Health 1 2 1 0 0 Protective Functions 20 29 12 5 0 Schools 12 14 23 8 8 Transportation Systems 1 12 0 0 0 Bridges 337 0 13 19 12 Water Supply 0 1 1 0 0 Wastewater 4 0 0 0 0 Power 2 1 1 0 0 Communications 1 12 1 0 0 Total 377 71 52 32 20 Time to Return to Functionality HAZUS-MH estimates the time to restore critical facilities to fully functional use. Results are presented as probability of being functional at specified time increments: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after the event. For example, HAZUS-MH may estimate that a facility has 5% chance of being fully functional at day 3, and a 95% chance of being fully functional at day 90. The analysis of critical facilities in the planning area was performed for the 100-year and Saddle Mountain Fault earthquake events. Tables 12- 12 and 12 -13 summarize the results. Table 12-12. Functionality of Critical Facilities for 100-Year Event. Category # of Critical Facilities Probability of Being Fully Functional (%) at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Medical and Health 4 99 99 100 100 100 100 Protective Functions 65 98 99 99 100 100 100 Schools 64 98 99 99 100 100 100 Transportation Systems 13 98 99 99 100 100 100 Bridges 364 99 100 100 100 100 100 Water Supply 2 99 100 100 100 100 100 Wastewater 4 99 100 100 100 100 100 Power 4 98 99 99 100 100 100 Communications 14 99 99 100 100 100 100 Total/Average 533 98.6 99.2 99.6 99.9 100.0 100.0 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 74 Table 12-13. Functionality of Critical Facilities for Saddle Mountain Fault Scenario. # of Critical Facilities Probability of Being Fully Functional (%) Category at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Medical and Health 4 82 82 90 91 99 99 Protective Functions 65 90 90 97 98 98 99 Schools 64 89 89 97 97 99 100 Transportation Systems 13 98 99 100 100 100 100 Bridges 364 95 96 97 97 97 98 Water Supply 2 83 97 98 99 99 100 Wastewater 4 82 96 99 99 100 100 Power 4 74 92 99 99 99 100 Communications 14 96 99 99 99 100 100 Total/Average 533 85.4 91.0 96.2 96.6 98.6 99.4 12.6.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to earthquake hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. 12.7 Future Trends in Development As the population in Grant County continues to grow, the exposure of people, infrastructure, and property to earthquake hazards will increase. Land use in the planning area will be directed by comprehensive plans adopted under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) which addresses geological hazard areas as one of the elements within the Critical Areas Ordinance of GMA, and the Washington State Building Council’s adoption of the 2021 International Building Codes. Development in the planning area will be regulated through building standards and performance measures so that the degree of risk will be reduced. The geologic hazard portions of the planning area are heavily regulated under Washington’s planning regulations. The International Building Code also establishes provisions to address seismic risk. 12.8 Scenario An earthquake does not have to occur within Grant County to have a significant impact on the people, property and economy of the county. Any seismic activity of 6.0 or greater on faults within the planning area would have significant impacts throughout the county. Potential warning systems could give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. This would not provide adequate time for preparation. Earthquakes of this magnitude or higher would lead to massive structural failure of property on NEHRP C, D, E, and F soils. Levees and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. These events could cause secondary hazards, including landslides and mudslides that would further damage structures. River valley hydraulic-fill sediment areas are also vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction would occur in water- saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 75 The modeling of a 7.4 earthquake scenario on the Saddle Mountain Fault, located within Grant County, indicates that the number of people injured in the scenario would likely be highest in Grant County. There would still likely be injuries in nearby counties including Adams, Kittitas, Yakima, Franklin, and Benton Counties (FEMA, USGS, WA-EMD, WA-DNR, 2012-13). In addition, the Grant County International Airport, located in Moses Lake, has been identified as a critical facility of state-wide importance. If a major earthquake were to occur in Western Washington, the airport has been identified as a potential location to bring in supplies and resources. 12.9 Issues Important issues associated with an earthquake include but are not limited to the following: • More information is needed on the exposure and performance of soft-story construction within the planning area. • 38%of the planning area’s building stock was built prior to 1975, when seismic provisions became uniformly applied through building code applications. • Critical facility owners should be encouraged to create or enhance Continuity of Operations Plans using the information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan. • Geotechnical standards should be established that take into account the probable impacts from earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities. • There are a large number of dams within the planning area. Dam failure warning and evacuation plans and procedures should be reviewed and updated to reflect the dams’ risk potential associated with earthquake activity in the region. • Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides, which could severely impact the county. • A worst-case scenario would be the occurrence of a large seismic event during a flood or high- water event. Dam failures could happen at multiple locations, increasing the impacts of the individual events. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 76 Map 12-1. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Site Class Map of Grant County, Washington. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 77 Map 12-2. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Grant County, Washington. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 78 Map 12-3. Saddle Mountain Fault, 7.35 Magnitude Earthquake Scenario Map. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 79 Map 12-4. 100 Year Probabilistic Earthquake. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 80 Map 12-5. 500 Year Probabilistic Earthquake. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 81 CHAPTER 13 FLOOD 13.1 General Background A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek or lake that becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains may be broad, as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in a canyon. When floodwaters recede after a flood event, they leave behind layers of rock and mud. These gradually build up to create a new floor of the floodplain. Floodplains generally contain unconsolidated sediments (accumulations of sand, gravel, loam, silt, and/or clay), often extending below the bed of the stream. These sediments provide a natural filtering system, with water percolating back into the ground and replenishing groundwater. These are often important aquifers, the water drawn from them being filtered compared to the water in the stream. Fertile, flat reclaimed floodplain lands are commonly used for agriculture, commerce and residential development. Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent during and after major flood events. These areas form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources but also provides natural flood and erosion control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced. 13.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, which is a statistical tool used to define the probability that a certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded within a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals 100 divided by the discharge probability. For example, the 100-year discharge has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The “annual flood” is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a typical year. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a 100-year or higher recurrence interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different recurrence intervals at different points on a river. The extent of flooding associated with a 1% annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100-year flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard DEFINITIONS Flood—The inundation of normally dry land resulting from the rising and overflowing of a body of water. Floodplain—The land area along the sides of a river that becomes inundated with water during a flood. 100-Year Floodplain—The area flooded by a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. This is a statistical average only; a 100- year flood can occur more than once in a short period of time. The 1% annual chance flood is the standard used by most federal and state agencies. Return Period—The average number of years between occurrences of a hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual likelihood of occurrence). Riparian Zone—The area along the banks of a natural watercourse. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 82 area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage. 13.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in quantity and diversity of plant and animal species. A floodplain can contain 100 or even 1000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the rapid decomposition of organic matter that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly; however, the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains particularly valuable for agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, riparian trees (trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick-growing compared to non-riparian trees. 13.1.3 Effects of Human Activities Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements. Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; land is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; and land is flatter and easier to develop. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This increases flood potential in two ways: it reduces the stream’s capacity to contain flows, and it increases flow rates or velocities downstream during all stages of a flood event. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities’ adverse impacts on floodplain functions. 13.1.4 Federal Flood Programs National Flood Insurance Program The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1% annual chance flood and the 0.2% annual chance flood (the 500-year flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 83 with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met: • New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-year flood. • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. • New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmon species. Grant County entered the NFIP on September 30, 1988. Structures permitted or built in the County before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is February 8, 2009. This map is a DFIRM (digital flood insurance rate map). All incorporated cities in Grant County also participate in the NFIP with the exception of the Cities of Grand Coulee and Electric City, which were sanctioned by the program on February 18, 2010. All of the county and its remaining cities are currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. There are currently 192 flood insurance policies in effect county-wide. The City of Moses Lake entered the NFIP program on January 5, 1989, and currently has six NFIP policies in place. The City of Ephrata has 144 policies in place, joining the NFIP program on September 30, 1988. The current effective date of Ephrata’s maps is February 28, 2009. The Town of Warden entered the program on February 18, 2009, which is also the date of its most current maps. Warden has no NFIP policies in place within its boundary. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. All planning partners that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The Community Rating System The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: • Reduce flood losses. • Facilitate accurate insurance rating. • Promote awareness of flood insurance. For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5%. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 % premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5% discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories: • Public information • Mapping and regulations • Flood damage reduction NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 84 • Flood preparedness There were 1,520 communities receiving flood insurance premium discounts under the CRS program in the nation and 31 communities in Washington State take part in the CRS program, as of July 2021. This includes participation by the first Native American Tribe in the Nation – the Lower Elwha Tribe. Washington is also home to two of the highest rated counties across the country (King and Pierce). CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66% of the NFIP’s policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks. Currently, only the City of Ephrata is participating in the CRS program as a Class 7 community. Many of the mitigation actions identified in Volume 2 of this plan are creditable activities under the CRS program. Therefore, successful implementation of this plan offers the potential for all communities within the County to enhance their CRS classifications and for currently non-participating communities to join the program. 13.2 Hazard Profile Flooding in Grant County is primarily a result of two factors: heavy snowfall followed by rapidly rising temperatures, or high-intensity, short-duration (1 to 3 hours) storms concentrated on a stream reach with soils that cannot be saturated or are already saturated. Two types of flooding are typical: • Flash floods that occur suddenly after a brief but intense downpour. They move rapidly, end suddenly, and can occur in areas not generally associated with flooding (such as subdivisions not adjacent to a water body and areas serviced by underground drainage systems). Although the duration of these events is usually brief, the damage they cause can be severe. Flash floods cannot be predicted accurately and happen whenever there are heavy storms. • Riverine floods described in terms of their extent (including the horizontal area affected and the vertical depth of floodwater) and the related probability of occurrence (expressed as the percentage chance that a flood of a specific extent will occur in any given year). In addition, because of the geological makeup of Grant County, there are many glacially formed coulees comprised of a gully or ravine which is usually dry, but becomes sizeable during rainy weather. There are also areas scattered throughout the County which are susceptible to dry washes as a result of heavy rains as well. Flooding is predominantly confined within traditional riverine valleys when excessive water discharge causes the river or stream channels to overflow. Within Grant County, both the Columbia River and Crab Creek, and their tributaries, are susceptible to flooding. Locally, some natural or manmade levees separate channels from floodplains and cause independent overland flow paths. Occasionally, railroad, highway or canal embankments form barriers, resulting in ponding or diversion of the flow. Some localized flooding not associated with stream overflow can occur where there are no drainage facilities to control flows or when runoff volumes exceed the design capacity of drainage facilities. The threat of flooding in Grant County is greatest in the months of December through February, although flood events may occur during other months of the year. While customarily high peak flows NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 85 result from when significant snowfall is present, followed by rapidly rising temperature and/or heavy rain, increased flow rates from the hydroelectric dams further increase the potential of flooding due to their effect on river discharge flows. 13.2.1 Principal Flooding Sources Grant County lies within the Columbia Basin area, and the county seat, Ephrata, is headquarters to the world’s largest irrigation project, the Columbia Basin Project. The Columbia River is the second largest river system in the United States behind the Mississippi River. From its source in Canada, the Columbia River flows 1,243 miles and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. The river drains an area of approximately 250,000 square miles. Tributaries to the Columbia River that sources of flooding within the planning area are described as follows: Crab Creek Crab Creek is the primary flooding source in Moses Lake, Wilson Creek, and unincorporated Grant County. Crab Creek flows generally from the eastern corporate limits to the western corporate limits and is joined by Wilson Creek near the southeast corner of the town. According to the USGS, Crab Creek serves a drainage area of some 2,228 square miles. Most flooding problems in the Crab Creek Basin occur from extreme runoff events of short duration. These flash floods are usually caused by heavy rain on snow covered frozen ground. This type of event will be referred to as a winter rain flood in this study. Severe spring and summer thunderstorms can also cause extensive flooding. The February 1957 flood is the largest flood recorded at the City of Moses Lake and the Town of Wilson Creek with peak flows in excess of 12,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). This event had an estimated recurrence interval of 65 years. Near the City of Moses Lake, bridges were damaged, though Crab Creek did not overflow its banks within the city. The channel through the city could have carried another 2 to 3 feet of water. The flood damaged both the Alder Street and State Highway 17 bridges by eroding the fill material and washing out the abutments. Floating ice aggravated the flooding by creating dams at the bridges and forcing backwater to inundate land adjacent to Crab Creek. The February 1957 flood inundated virtually the entire town of Wilson Creek by approximately four to five feet of water, as Wilson Creek overtopped and breached the levee in place at the time, allowing 80% of its flow to pass though the business district. The current levee system is not sufficient to provide flood protection for the 1% annual chance flood event. Residences and businesses were damaged extensively, streets were eroded, bridges were washed out, and large sections of the levee system were destroyed. The flooding was aggravated by the failure of Bennett’s Dam, located about two miles upstream of town on Wilson Creek. The failure of this structure increased the peak flow on Wilson Creek by an estimated 5,000 cfs. Ice and debris jams aggravated flooding as well. Dry Creek Several floods have occurred on Dry Creek at Ephrata since 1900. The three largest floods occurred in 1901, 1920, and 1948. The 1901 flood was caused by rain combined with snowmelt; the 1920 and 1948 floods were caused by severe thunderstorms. No estimates were made of the peak discharges for the 1901 and 1920 floods. The 1948 flood was reported to be the worst flood in the history of Ephrata, with a peak discharge of 3,080 cfs estimated by slope-area measurements. The estimated recurrence interval is 75 years. This flood was the result of a severe thunderstorm on the evening of May 27. An eight-foot wall of water roared down Dry Creek and broke through the existing diversion dikes at First Avenue Northwest and G Street Northwest, causing extensive damage. A 60-block area of the city was NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 86 inundated by water and silt. Basements, streets, lawns, and most of the downtown offices at street level were flooded. Storm sewers that were obstructed by silt aggravated the flooding. 13.2.2 Past Events Table 13-1. Grant County Flood Events. Date Declaration # Type of Event Estimated Damagea 1904 N/A Flooding (First flooding of record on Crab Creek) N/A 1948 N/A Flooding due to lack of canal in Ephrata and Sagebrush Flats N/A March 1957 70 Flood N/A March 1963 146 Flood N/A 1964/1965 N/A Flood - Wilson Creek damaged bridge N/A 1973 N/A Flood in Dry Creek Canyon. N/A June 24, 1991 N/A Flash Flooding 50,000 Dec 1996-Feb 1997 1159 Flood, Ice, Wind, Snow, Landslides (below Priest Rapids Dam due to snowmelt) N/A July 31, 1998 N/A Flood 40,000 June 6, 2009 N/A Flash flood 10,000 a Data obtained from Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) N/A = Information is not available. 13.2.3 Location The major floods in Grant County have resulted from intense weather rainstorms between December and February. The flooding that has occurred in portions of the county has been extensively documented by gage records, high water marks, damage surveys and personal accounts. This documentation was the basis for the June 16, 2009 FIRMs generated by FEMA for Grant County. 13.2.4 Frequency Grant County experiences episodes of river flooding almost every winter. Large floods that can cause property damage typically occur every three to seven years. Urban portions of the county annually experience nuisance flooding related to drainage issues. 13.2.5 Severity The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain, redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Flood severity is often evaluated by examining peak discharges; Table 13-3 lists peak flows used by FEMA to map the floodplains of Grant County. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 87 Table 13-2. Summary of Peak Discharges Within Grant County. Drainage Area (Mi2) Discharge (cubic feet/second) Source/Location 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year Crab Creek At USGS gaging station, 3 miles north of Moses Lake 2,009 2,960 8,800 13,200 31,000 Downstream of confluence with Rocky Coulee Wasteway 2,306 3,300 9,450 14,100 32,700 Upstream of confluence of Wilson Creek 1,338 4.800 10,100 12,600 18,600 Downstream of confluence with Wilson Creek 1,765 7,170 14,570 18,170 27,600 Dry Creek At West Canal Crossing 26.8 1,080 2,550 3,500 7,000 Wilson Creek At confluence with Crab Creek 427 3,670 7,470 9,370 14,200 Source: FEMA, 2009 13.2.6 Warning Time Due to the sequential pattern of meteorological conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to occur without warning. Warning times for floods can be between 36 and 72 hours. Flash flooding can be less predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash flooding danger. Flooding is more likely to occur due to a rain storm when the soil is already wet and/or streams are already running high from recent previous rains (conditions already in place when a storm begins are called “antecedent conditions”). Grant County utilizes the National Weather Service’s terminology and alert broadcasts, as follows: • Flood Potential: An event could develop in the next 36 to 72 hours with the possibility of life- threatening situations if caution is not exercised. • Flood Watch: A flood is possible but not certain within the next 12 to 36 hours. Be alert, monitor NOAA Weather Radio and be prepared to take immediate action if the watch is upgraded to a warning. • Flood Warning: A severe or dangerous weather event is occurring or is imminent in the next 12 hours. TAKE ACTION NOW!! Based on the Weather Service’s predictions, Grant County responds accordingly. 13.3 Secondary Hazards The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion, which in some cases can be more harmful than actual flooding. This is especially true in the upper courses of rivers with steep gradients, where floodwaters may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties closer to the floodplain or causing them to fall in. Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides when high flows over-saturate soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are also a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers or NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 88 storm sewers. 13.4 Climate Change Impacts Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Going forward, model calibration or statistical relation development must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted. Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following: • Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions. • Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency response. The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain area to contribute to peak storm runoff. High frequency flood event s (e.g. 10 - year floods) in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. Along with reductions in the amount of the snowpack and accelerated snowmelt, scientists project greater storm intensity, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts. As hydrology changes, what is currently considered a 100-year flood may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, floodways, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains. 13.5 Exposure The Level 2 HAZUS-MH protocol was used to assess the risk and vulnerability to flooding in the planning area. The model used census data at the block level and FEMA floodplain data, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Where possible, the HAZUS-MH default data was enhanced using local GIS data from county, state and federal sources. 13.5.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain in the planning area were generated by analyzing NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 89 buildings that intersect with the 100 and 500-year floodplains identified on DFIRMs. GIS estimated the number of buildings within the floodplain, and then estimated the total population by multiplying the number of residential structures by the average Grant County household size of three persons per household. Using this approach, it was estimated that the exposed population for the entire county is 2,800 within the 100-year floodplain (3.1% of the total county population) and 2,865 within the 500-year floodplain (3.2% of the total). For the unincorporated portions of the county, it is estimated that the exposed population is 678 within the 100-year floodplain and 700 within the 500-year floodplain. 13.5.2 Property Structures in the Floodplain Table 13-3 and Table 13-4 summarize the total area and number of structures in the floodplain by municipality. The GIS model determined that there are 1,153 structures within the 100-year floodplain and 1,172 structures within the 500-year floodplain. In the 100-year floodplain, about 28% of these structures are in unincorporated areas. Table 13-3. Area and Structure Within the 100-Year Floodplain. Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Coulee City 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric City 451 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ephrata 522 558 233 1 0 0 16 8 816 George 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Coulee 87 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hartline 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Krupp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mattawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moses Lake 1,410 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 Quincy 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Royal City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soap Lake 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warden 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilson Creek 24 90 15 0 1 0 3 0 109 Unincorporated 118,364 203 21 1 27 0 2 0 254 Total 121,283 889 271 2 28 0 21 8 1,129 Exposed Value Table 13-6 summarizes the estimated value of exposed buildings in the planning area. This methodology estimated $268.6 million worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 100-year flood, representing 3.5% of the total assessed value of the planning area. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 90 Table 13-4. Value of Exposed Building Within 100-Year Floodplain. Estimated Flood Exposure % of Total Assessed Value Structures Contents Total Coulee City 0 0 0 0.00% Electric City $21,825 $21,825 $43,650 0.04% Ephrata $179,139,680 $140,432,258 $319,571,938 32.44% George 0 0 0 0.00% Grand Coulee $84,580 $84,580 $169,160 0.14% Hartline $14,530 $7,265 $21,795 0.12% Krupp 0 0 0 0.00% Mattawa 0 0 0 0.00% Moses Lake $16,683,475 $8,341,738 $25,025,213 0.61% Quincy $64,180 $32,090 $96,270 0.02% Royal City 0 0 0 0.00% Soap Lake 0 0 0 0.00% Warden 0 0 0 0.00% Wilson Creek $5,471,270 $3,429,208 $8,900,478 36.82% Unincorporated $57,993,910 $35,620,513 $93,614,423 1.42% Total $259,473,450 $187,969,475 $447,442,925 2.54% 13.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Tables 13 -5 and 13-6 summarize the critical facilities and infrastructure in the 100-year floodplain of Grant County. Tier II Facilities Tier II facilities are those that use or store materials that can harm the environment if damaged by a flood. No businesses in the 100-year floodplain report having Tier II hazardous materials. During a flood event, containers holding these materials can rupture and leak into the surrounding area, having a disastrous effect on the environment as well as residents. Utilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the county, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. Dikes can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. The following sections describe specific types of critical infrastructure. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 91 Table 13-5. Grant County Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain. City Medical and Health Government Functions Protective Functions Schools Hazmat Other Critical Functions Total Coulee City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephrata 1 1 2 5 0 6 15 George 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Coulee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hartline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Krupp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mattawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moses Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quincy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soap Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilson Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 1 2 5 0 6 15 Table 13-6. Grant County Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain. City Bridges Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other Total Coulee City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephrata 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 George 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Coulee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hartline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Krupp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mattawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moses Lake 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Quincy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soap Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilson Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Unincorporated 25 0 1 2 1 10 39 Total 30 0 1 3 2 10 46 Roads The following major roads in Grant County pass through the 100-year floodplain and thus are exposed to flooding: State Route (SR) 155, SR 243, SR 17, SR 28, SR 170, SR 24, US 2, Interstate-90. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 92 Some of these roads are built above the flood level, and others function as levees to prevent flooding. Still, in severe flood events these roads can be blocked or damaged, preventing access to some areas. Bridges Flooding events can significantly impact road bridges. These are important because often they provide the only ingress and egress to some neighborhoods. An analysis showed that there are 30 bridges that are in or cross over the 100-year floodplain. Water and Sewer Infrastructure Water and sewer systems can be affected by flooding. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up, causing wastewater to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers and streams. Environment Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless, with human development factored in, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Migrating fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded fields, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such as bridge abutments and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non-natural courses. 13.6 Vulnerability Many of the areas exposed to flooding may not experience serious flooding or flood damage. This section describes vulnerabilities in terms of population, property, infrastructure and environment. 13.6.1 Population HAZUS estimated that a 100-year flood could displace up to 1,678 people, with 1,195 of those people needing short-term shelter. 13.6.2 Property HAZUS-MH calculates losses to structures from flooding by looking at depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, HAZUS-MH estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, local data on facilities was used instead of the default inventory data provided with HAZUS-MH. The analysis is summarized in Table 13-7 for the 100-year flood event. It is estimated that there would be up to $52.6 million of flood loss from a 100-year flood event in the planning area. This represents 19.6% of the total exposure to the 100-year flood and 0.7% of the total assessed value for the county. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 93 Table 13-7. Estimated Flood Loss for the 100-Year Flood Event. Estimated Flood Loss % of Total Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Coulee City 0 0 0 0.00% Electric City 0 0 0 0.00% Ephrata $28,812,000 $41,374,000 $70,186,000 7.13% George 0 0 0 0.00% Grand Coulee 0 0 0 0.00% Hartline 0 0 0 0.00% Krupp 0 0 0 0.00% Mattawa 0 0 0 0.00% Moses Lake $2,977,000 $2,010,000 $4,987,000 0.12% Quincy 0 0 0 0.00% Royal City 0 0 0 0.00% Soap Lake 0 0 0 0.00% Warden 0 0 0 0.00% Wilson Creek $893,000 $1,139,000 $2,032,000 8.41% Unincorporated $14,207,000 $13,023,000 $27,230,000 0.41% Total $46,889,000 $57,546,000 $104,435,000 0.59% National Flood Insurance Program Table 13-8 lists flood insurance statistics that help identify vulnerability in Grant County. Eight communities in the planning area, including unincorporated Grant County, participate in the NFIP, with 160 flood insurance policies providing $35.8 million in insurance coverage. According to FEMA statistics, 16 flood insurance claims were paid between January 1, 1978 and October 24th, 2022, for a total of $80,820, an average of $5,051 per claim. Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The first FIRMs in Grant County were available in 1988. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 94 Table 13-8. Flood Insurance Statistics for Grant County. Jurisdiction Date of Entry Initial FIRM Effective Date # of Flood Insurance Policies as of 10/24/2022 Insurance In Force Total Annual Premium Claims, 11/1978 to 10/4/2022 Value of Claims paid, 11/1988 to 10/24/2022 Hartline 2/18/2009 0 $0 $0 0 $0 Ephrata 9/30/1988 122 $26,740,000 $106,661 14 $9,100 Moses Lake 1/5/1989 6 $2,393,000 $4,187 0 $0 Warden 12/18/2009 0 $0 $0 0 $0 Wilson Creek 7/15/1988 7 $728,900 $9,635 0 $0 Unincorporated 9/30/1988 25 $5,966,900 $16,042 2 $71,719 Total 160 $35,818,800 $136,525 16 $80,820 The following information from flood insurance statistics is relevant to reducing flood risk: • The use of flood insurance in Grant County is well below the national average. Only 13.7% of insurable buildings in the county and within the floodplain are covered by flood insurance. According to an NFIP study, about 49% of single-family homes in special flood hazard areas are covered by flood insurance nationwide. • The average claim paid in the planning area is about $20,000. The percentage of policies and claims outside a mapped floodplain suggests that not all of the flood risk in the planning area is reflected in current mapping. Based on information from the NFIP, 85% of policies in the planning area are on structures within an identified SFHA, and 15% are for structures outside such areas. Repetitive Loss A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP-insured property that has experienced any of the following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership: • Four or more paid losses in excess of $1,000 • Two paid losses in excess of $1,000 within any rolling 10-year period • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Repetitive loss properties make up only 1 to 2% of flood insurance policies in force nationally, yet they account for 40% of the nation’s flood insurance claim payments. In 1998, FEMA reported that the NFIP’s 75,000 repetitive loss structures have already cost $2.8 billion in flood insurance payments and that numerous other flood-prone structures remain in the floodplain at high risk. The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of repetitive losses. A recent report on repetitive losses by the National Wildlife Federation found that 20% of these properties are outside any mapped 100-year floodplain. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of flood insurance policies and claims paid by the policies. FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the CRS, require participating communities to identify repetitive loss areas. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as meeting the definition of repetitive loss. Identifying repetitive loss areas helps to identify structures that are at risk but are not on FEMA’s list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in force at the time of loss. According to FEMA region, there are no identified repetitive loss properties within the planning area as of May 31, 2022. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 95 13.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure HAZUS-MH was used to estimate the flood loss potential to critical facilities exposed to the flood risk. Using depth/damage function curves to estimate the percent of damage to the building and contents of critical facilities, HAZUS-MH correlates these estimates into an estimate of functional down-time (the estimated time it will take to restore a facility to 100% of its functionality). This helps to gauge how long the planning area could have limited usage of facilities deemed critical to flood response and recovery. The HAZUS critical facility results are as follows: • 100-year flood event—On average, critical facilities would receive 12.7% damage to the structure and 48.7% damage to the contents during a 100-year flood event. The estimated time to restore these facilities to 100% of their functionality is 624 days. 13.6.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to flood hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. Loss estimation platforms such as HAZUS-MH are not currently equipped to measure environmental impacts of flood hazards. The best gauge of vulnerability of the environment would be a review of damage from past flood events. Loss data that segregates damage to the environment was not available at the time of this plan. Capturing this data from future events could be beneficial in measuring the vulnerability of the environment for future updates. 13.7 Future Trends in Development A growing population may increase the number of people and infrastructure exposed to flood risks, leading to potential health hazards, displacement, and in rare cases, loss of life. Changes in land use may harm ecosystems that help regulate flooding, such as wetlands. However, through effective planning, resilient infrastructure, and updated floodplain management, the adverse impacts of flooding can be minimized. Grant County and its planning partner cities are subject to the provisions of the Washington GMA, which regulates identified critical areas. County critical areas regulations include frequently flooded areas, defined as the FEMA 100-year mapped floodplain. The GMA establishes programs to monitor the densities at which commercial, residential and industrial development occurs under local GMA comprehensive plans and development regulations. As participants in the NFIP, Grant County and the partner cities have adopted flood damage prevention ordinances pursuant to the participation requirements. While these ordinances do not prohibit new development within the floodplain, they include new development provisions that account for the risk inherent to the floodplain. As areas in Grant County continue to develop, there is an increase in impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings, and pavement which reduce natural infiltration and increase runoff, leading to a higher flood risk during heavy rainfall events. In addition, development in the floodplain may also reduce natural water storage areas and impact ecosystems that play a vital role in absorbing and storing excess water during heavy rainfall. However, the combination of the GMA provisions, critical areas regulations and NFIP flood damage prevention provisions equips the municipal planning partners with adequate tools to address new development in the floodplain. As pressures mount for growth into areas with flood risk, these tools NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 96 could be enhanced with higher regulatory standards to increase the level of risk reduction on new development. 13.8 Scenario The primary watercourses in Grant County have the potential to flood at irregular intervals, generally in response to a succession of intense winter rainstorms. Storm patterns of warm, moist air usually occur between early October and April. A series of such weather events can cause severe flooding in the planning area. The worst-case scenario is a series of storms that flood numerous drainage basins in a short time. This could overwhelm the response and floodplain management capability within the planning area. Major roads could be blocked, preventing critical access for many residents and critical functions. High in-channel flows could cause water courses to scour, possibly washing out roads and creating more isolation problems. In the case of multi-basin flooding, the County would not be able to make repairs quickly enough to restore critical facilities and infrastructure. 13.9 Issues The planning team has identified the following flood-related issues relevant to the planning area: • The extent of the flood-protection currently provided by flood control facilities (dams, dikes and levees) is not known due to the lack of an established national policy on flood protection standards. • The risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as earthquake, landslide and fishing losses. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. • How will potential climate change impact flood conditions in Grant County? • More information is needed on flood risk to support the concept of risk-based analysis of capital projects. • There needs to be a sustained effort to gather historical damage data, such as high water marks on structures and damage reports, to measure the cost-effectiveness of future mitigation projects. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources. • There needs to be a coordinated hazard mitigation effort between jurisdictions affected by flood hazards in the county. • Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the resources available during and after floods. • The concept of residual risk should be considered in the design of future capital flood control projects and should be communicated with residents living in the floodplain. • The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from the economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue. • Existing floodplain-compatible uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained. There is constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times of moderate to high growth. • The economy affects a jurisdiction’s ability to manage its floodplains. Budget cuts and personnel losses can strain resources needed to support floodplain management. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 97 Map 13-1. Floodplain Map: 2009 FEMA Flood Data. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 98 CHAPTER 14 LANDSLIDE 14.1 General Background A landslide is a mass of rock, earth or debris moving down a slope. Landslides may be minor or very large, and can move at slow to very high speeds. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions or human modification of the land. Mudslides (or mudflows or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth, organic matter and other soil materials saturated with water. They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material increases to the point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically weakened. The soil’s reduced resistance can then easily be overcome by gravity, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or “slurry.” A debris flow or mudflow can move rapidly down slopes or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. The slurry can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars and anything else in its path. Although these slides behave as fluids, they pack many times the hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material included in them. Locally, they can be some of the most destructive events in nature. All mass movements are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as the encroaching influence of urbanization. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it. 14.2 Hazard Profile Landslides are caused by one or a combination of the following factors: change in slope of the terrain, increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations, change in water content, groundwater movement, frost action, weathering of rocks, and removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes. In general, landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill movement of material, such as the following: • A slope greater than 33% • A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years • Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank or cut into a bank to cause the surrounding land to be unstable • The presence or potential for snow avalanches • The presence of an alluvial fan, indicating vulnerability to the flow of debris or sediments • The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such as sand and gravel. DEFINITIONS Landslide—The sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Such failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope is exceeded by the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. Mass Movement—A collective term for landslides, debris flows, falls and sinkholes. Mudslide (or Mudflow or Debris Flow)—A river of rock, earth, organic matter and other materials saturated with water. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 99 Flows and slides are commonly categorized by the form of initial ground failure. Figure 14-1 through Figure 14-4 show common types of slides. The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring particularly in response to intense, short-duration storms. The largest and most destructive are deep- seated slides, although they are less common than other types. Slides and earth flows can pose serious hazard to property in hillside terrain. They tend to move slowly and thus rarely threaten life directly. When they move—in response to such changes as increased water content, earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope support—they deform and tilt the ground surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or overriding of downslope property and structures. 14.2.1 Past Events There is little recorded information regarding landslides in Grant County. Those that have occurred have been the result of flooding, breaks in irrigation canals or in the volcanic lava formation along the Columbia River and Coulee's. One area near Grand Coulee Dam has been subject to earth movement due to vibrations from the Dam's operations causing some structure problems to buildings and fuel tanks. Figure 14-1. Deep Seated Slide. Figure 14-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide. Figure 14-3. Bench Slide. Figure 14-4. Large Slide. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 100 According to the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), two slides are reported to have occurred within Grant County. The first occurred on January 26, 1965, causing $12,820 worth of property damage (1965 value). The second occurred on December 18, 1972, which caused $18,518 worth of damages (1972 value). There are two additional events which occurred within Grant County: July 20, 1996 in the Grand Coulee Dam area; damage extent not reported. The second event occurred in February 1999, within the City of Grand Coulee. Again, the extent of damages is unknown. There are no records in the County of fatalities attributed to mass movement. However, deaths have occurred across the west coast as a result of slides and slope collapses. 14.2.2 Location The best available predictor of where movement of slides and earth flows might occur is the location of past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small proportion of them may become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part of the landslide masses or around their edges. The recognition of ancient dormant mass movement sites is important in the identification of areas susceptible to flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet weather. Also, because they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, these dormant sites are vulnerable to construction- triggered sliding. Another predictor is areas with steep slopes, which are more prone to failure and are regulated as geologic hazard critical areas. Within Grant County, there are a number of areas that are in danger of landslides due to steep slopes. Those would include the Columbia River areas, and Coulee's such as Bank's Lake area and the old Columbia River George between Soap Lake and Coulee City. The area at Grand Coulee Dam is also subject to slides during heavy rains. 14.2.3 Frequency Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods or wildfires, so landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. In Grant County, landslides typically occur during and after major storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. Until better data is generated specifically for landslide hazards, this severe storm frequency is appropriate for the purpose of ranking risk associated with the landslide hazard. 14.2.4 Severity Historically, landslides have been known to destroy property and infrastructure and can take the lives of people. Slope failures in the United States result in an average of 25 lives lost per year and an annual cost to society of about $1.5 billion. 14.2.5 Warning Time Mass movements can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of movement may range from a slow creep NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 101 of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material and water content. Some methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and the amount of time prior to failure. It is also possible to determine what areas are at risk during general time periods. Assessing the geology, vegetation and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in these predictions. However, there is no practical warning system for individual landslides. The current standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case-by-case basis, and respond after the event has occurred. Generally accepted warning signs for landslide activity include: • Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before • New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks • Soil moving away from foundations • Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the main house • Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations • Broken water lines and other underground utilities • Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences • Offset fence lines • Sunken or down-dropped road beds • Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content) • Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped • Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating jambs and frames out of plumb • A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears • Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together. 14.3 Secondary Hazards Landslides can cause several types of secondary effects, such as blocking access to roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This could result in economic losses for businesses. Other potential problems resulting from landslides are power and communication failures. Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication lines. Landslides also have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents. They also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries and spawning habitat. 14.4 Climate Change Impacts Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration. Increase in global temperature could affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these factors would increase the probability for landslide occurrences. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 102 14.5 Exposure 14.5.1 Population Population could not be examined by landslide hazard area because census block group areas do not coincide with the hazard areas. A population estimate was made using the structure count of buildings within the landslide hazard areas and applying the census value of three persons per household for Grant County. Using this approach, the estimated population living in the potential landslide risk area is 697. It should be noted that this approach could understate the exposure by as much as a factor of two, so it is reasonable to assume that the exposed population may be as high as 1,400, less than 1% of the total county population. 14.5.2 Property Table 14-1 show the number and assessed value of structures exposed to the landslide risk. There are 242 structures on parcels with slopes greater than 33%, with an estimated value of $84.4 million. Table 14-1. Grant County Parcels with Structures on Slopes Greater than 33 Percent. Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total % of AV Coulee City 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Electric City 4 $599,180 $299,590 $898,770 0.8% Ephrata 11 $3,126,335 $1,603,698 $4,730,033 0.5% George 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Grand Coulee 23 $2,779,500 $1,501,740 $4,281,240 3.6% Hartline 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Krupp 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Mattawa 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Moses Lake 29 $6,795,215 $3,397,608 $10,192,823 0.2% Quincy 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Royal City 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Soap Lake 2 $229,195 $114,598 $343,793 0.2% Warden 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Wilson Creek 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated 173 $40,968,955 $23,030,713 $63,999,668 1.0% Total 242 $54,498,380 $29,947,945 $84,446,325 0.5% 14.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Grant County has no critical facilities exposed to steep slope hazard areas, but it is still possible for a significant amount of infrastructure to be exposed to mass movements: • Roads—Access to major roads is crucial to life-safety after a disaster event and to response and recovery operations. Landslides can block egress and ingress on roads, causing isolation for neighborhoods, traffic problems and delays for public and private transportation. This can result NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 103 in economic losses for businesses. • Bridges—Landslides can significantly impact road bridges. Mass movements can knock out bridge abutments or significantly weaken the soil supporting them, making them hazardous for use. • Power Lines—Power lines are generally elevated above steep slopes; but the towers supporting them can be subject to landslides. A landslide could trigger failure of the soil underneath a tower, causing it to collapse and ripping down the lines. Power and communication failures due to landslides can create problems for vulnerable populations and businesses. 14.5.4 Environment Environmental problems as a result of mass movements can be numerous. Landslides that fall into streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolong periods of time due to landslides. 14.6 Vulnerability 14.6.1 Population Due to the nature of census block group data, it is difficult to determine demographics of populations vulnerable to mass movements. In general, all of the estimated 697 persons exposed to higher risk landslide areas are considered to be vulnerable. Increasing population and the fact that many homes are built on view property atop or below bluffs and on steep slopes subject to mass movement, increases the number of lives endangered by this hazard. 14.6.2 Property Although complete historical documentation of the landslide threat in Grant County is lacking, the landslides references suggest a minimal vulnerability to such hazards. The one factor which is significant is the impact of the dam operations itself causing landslides as a result of the vibration of machinery. The extent of the potential impact from this at present is unknown. Loss estimations for the landslide hazard are not based on modeling utilizing damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10%, 30% and 50% of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50% is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 14-3 shows the general building stock loss estimates in all landslide risk areas. 14.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure There are no critical facilities exposed to the steep slope hazard. Several types of infrastructure are exposed to mass movements, including transportation, water and sewer and power infrastructure. Highly susceptible areas of the county include mountainous roadways NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 104 and transportation infrastructure. At this time all infrastructure and transportation corridors identified as exposed to the landslide hazard are considered vulnerable until more information becomes available. The other major factor is the impact from the vibration of the machinery at Grand Coulee Dam, and the potential impact this may have on the structure of the dam. Until greater information can be gathered, the extent of impact from these landslides is unknown. 14.6.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to landslide hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. Table 14-2 describes the values of the structures vulnerable to landslide. Table 14-2. Estimated Building Losses Exposed to Landslide Risk Areas. Jurisdiction Building Count Structure Value Contents Value Total Value Coulee City 0 $0 $0 $0 Electric City 4 $599,180 $299,580 $899,770 Ephrata 11 $3,126,335 $1,603,698 $4,730,033 George 0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Coulee 23 $2,779,500 $1,501,740 $4,281,240 Hartline 0 $0 $0 $0 Krupp 0 $0 $0 $0 Mattawa 0 $0 $0 $0 Moses Lake 29 $6,795,215 $3,397,608 $10,192,823 Quincy 0 $0 $0 $0 Royal City 0 $0 $0 $0 Soap Lake 2 $229,195 $114,598 $343,793 Warden 0 $0 $0 $0 Wilson Creek 0 $0 $0 $0 Unincorporated 173 $40,968,955 $23,030,713 $63,999,668 Total 242 $54,498,380 $29,947,945 $84,446,325 14.7 Future Trends in Development The county has experienced moderate growth over the past 10 years. The population of the County grew 1.2% from April 2020 to July of 2021, which is significantly faster than the state’s 0.4% growth rate. Grant County and its planning partners are optimistic that sustained growth will continue. An increased population or changes in land use may lead to greater exposure and vulnerability to landslides. Higher population density could result in more development in high risk landslide areas, putting more lives and property at risk. Changes in land use, such as increased development intensity, can alter the natural landscape and lead to increased landslide susceptibility. Development may include the construction of roads, buildings, houses, and infrastructure on steep slopes that can disturb the natural stability of the terrain, which may increase likelihood of landslides. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 105 The County and its planning partners are equipped to handle future growth within landslide hazard areas. All partners have committed to linking their comprehensive plans to this hazard mitigation plan update. This will create an opportunity for wise land use decisions as future growth impacts landslide hazard areas. Additionally, the State of Washington has adopted the International Building Code (IBC) by reference in its building code standards. The IBC includes provisions for geotechnical analyses in steep slope areas that have soil types considered susceptible to landslide hazards. These provisions assure that new construction is built to standards that reduce the vulnerability to landslide risk. 14.8 Scenario Landslides in Grant County occur as a result of soil conditions that have been affected by severe storms, groundwater or human development. The worst-case scenario for landslide hazards in the planning area would generally correspond to a severe storm that had heavy rain and caused flooding. Landslides are most likely during the fall/winter timeframe, when the water tables are higher. After heavy rains from October to April, soils become saturated with water. As water seeps downward through upper soils that may consist of permeable sands and gravels and accumulates on impermeable silt, it will cause weakness and destabilization in the slope. A short intense storm could cause saturated soil to move, resulting in landslides. As rains continue, the groundwater table rises, adding to the weakening of the slope. Gravity, poor drainage, a rising groundwater table and poor soil exacerbate hazardous conditions. This factor is of high concern within the dam areas as well, as Grant County has 64 dams countywide. Mass movements are becoming more of a concern as development moves outside of city centers and into areas less developed in terms of infrastructure. Most mass movements would be isolated events affecting specific areas. It is probable that private and public property, including infrastructure, will be affected. Mass movements could affect dams and their supporting structures, and bridges that pass over landslide prone ravines and knock out rail service through the county. Road obstructions caused by mass movements could create isolation problems for some residents and businesses in sparsely developed areas. Property owners exposed to steep slopes may suffer damage to property or structures. Landslides carrying vegetation such as shrubs and trees may cause a break in utility lines, cutting off power and communication access to residents. Continued heavy rains and flooding will complicate the problem further. As emergency response resources are applied to problems with flooding, it is possible they will be unavailable to assist with landslides occurring all over Grant County. 14.9 Issues Important issues associated with landslides in Grant County include the following: • The impact of slide damages around the dams within Grant County should be further studied, as the stability of the surrounding land and impacts from potential slides is unknown. • There are existing homes in landslide risk areas throughout the County. The degree of vulnerability of these structures depends on the codes and standards the structures were constructed to. Information to this level of detail is not currently available. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 106 • Future development could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas. • Mapping and assessment of landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science become available, assessments of landslide risk should be reevaluated. • The impact of climate change on landslides is uncertain. If climate change impacts atmospheric conditions, then exposure to landslide risks is likely to increase. • Landslides may cause negative environmental consequences, including water quality degradation. • The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as earthquake, flood and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 107 Map 14-1. USGS Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 108 CHAPTER 15 SEVERE WEATHER 15.1 General Background Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. It includes thunderstorms, downbursts, tornadoes, waterspouts, snowstorms, ice storms, and dust storms. Severe weather can be categorized into two groups: those that form over wide geographic areas are classified as general severe weather; those with a more limited geographic area are classified as localized severe weather. Severe weather, technically, is not the same as extreme weather, which refers to unusual weather events are at the extremes of the historical distribution for a given area. Four types of severe weather events typically impact Grant County: thunderstorms, damaging winds, hail storms and flash flooding. The entire county is susceptible to these events. There have been five recorded tornado/funnel cloud events with the County since 1950. Flooding issues associated with severe weather are discussed in Chapter 13. The other three types of severe weather common to Grant County are described in the following sections. 15.1.1 Thunderstorms A thunderstorm is a rain event that includes thunder and lightning. A thunderstorm is classified as “severe” when it contains one or more of the following: hail with a diameter of three-quarter inch or greater, winds gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or tornado. Three factors cause thunderstorms to form: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising when disturbed), and a lifting mechanism to provide the disturbance. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which warms the air above it. If this warm surface air is forced to rise (hills or mountains can cause rising motion, as can the interaction of warm air and cold air or wet air and dry air) it will continue to rise as long as it weighs less and stays warmer than the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the surface of the earth to the upper levels of the atmosphere (the process of convection). The water vapor it contains begins to cool and it condenses into a cloud. The DEFINITIONS Freezing Rain—The result of rain occurring when the temperature is below the freezing point. The rain freezes on impact, resulting in a layer of glaze ice up to an inch thick. In a severe ice storm, an evergreen tree 60 feet high and 30 feet wide can be burdened with up to six tons of ice, creating a threat to power and telephone lines and transportation routes. Dust Storm/Dryland Farming – Since dryland farmers rely on rainfall to water crops, they engage in practices to maintain moisture in the soil. Such practices include leaving a field fallow for a year after harvesting, allowing buildup of water in the soil and covering the field with dry earth to seal in the underlying moisture. These practices make dryland agriculture susceptible to dust storms. This is a common method used in Eastern Washington, which is an arid region. Heavy Snow—Snow accumulations of 4 inches in 12 hours or 6 inches in 24 hours in non- mountainous locations; or 8 inches in 12 hours or 12 inches in 24 hours in mountain areas. Severe Local Storm—”Microscale” atmospheric systems, including tornadoes, thunderstorms, windstorms, ice storms and snowstorms. These storms may cause a great deal of destruction and even death, but their impact is generally confined to a small area. Typical impacts are on transportation infrastructure and utilities. Thunderstorm—A storm featuring heavy rains, strong winds, thunder and lightning, typically about 15 miles in diameter and lasting about 30 minutes. Hail and tornadoes are also dangers associated with thunderstorms. Lightning is a serious threat to human life. Heavy rains over a small area in a short time can lead to flash flooding. Tornado—Funnel clouds that generate winds up to 500 miles per hour. They can affect an area up to three- quarters of a mile wide, with a path of varying length. Tornadoes can come from lines of cumulonimbus clouds or from a single storm cloud. They are measured using the Fujita Scale, ranging from EF0 to EF5. Windstorm—A storm featuring violent winds. Southwesterly winds are associated with strong storms moving onto the coast from the Pacific Ocean. Southern winds parallel to the coastal mountains are the strongest and most destructive winds. Windstorms tend to damage ridgelines that face into the winds. Winter Storm—A storm having significant snowfall, ice, and/or freezing rain; the quantity of precipitation varies by elevation. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 109 cloud eventually grows upward into areas where the temperature is below freezing. Some of the water vapor turns to ice and some of it turns into water droplets. Both have electrical charges. Ice particles usually have positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative charges. When the charges build up enough, they are discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the sound waves we hear as thunder. Although the entire County is susceptible to thunderstorms, each event usually impacts a localized area that follows the path of the storm. Thunderstorms have three stages: • The developing stage of a thunderstorm is marked by a cumulus cloud that is being pushed upward by a rising column of air (updraft). The cumulus cloud soon looks like a tower (called towering cumulus) as the updraft continues to develop. There is little to no rain during this stage but occasional lightning. The developing stage lasts about 10 minutes. • The thunderstorm enters the mature stage when the updraft continues to feed the storm, but precipitation begins to fall out of the storm, and a downdraft begins (a column of air pushing downward). When the downdraft and rain-cooled air spread out along the ground, they form a gust front, or a line of gusty winds. The mature stage is the most likely time for hail, heavy rain, frequent lightning, strong winds, and tornadoes. The storm occasionally has a black or dark green appearance. • Eventually, a large amount of precipitation is produced and the updraft is overcome by the downdraft beginning the dissipating stage. At the ground, the gust front moves out a long distance from the storm and cuts off the warm moist air that was feeding the thunderstorm. Rainfall decreases in intensity, but lightning remains a danger. There are four types of thunderstorms: • Single-Cell Thunderstorms—Single-cell thunderstorms usually last 20 to 30 minutes. A true single-cell storm is rare, because the gust front of one cell often triggers the growth of another. Most single-cell storms are not usually severe, but a single-cell storm can produce a brief severe weather event. When this happens, it is called a pulse severe storm. • Multi-Cell Cluster Storm—A multi-cell cluster is the most common type of thunderstorm. The multi-cell cluster consists of a group of cells, moving as one unit, with each cell in a different phase of the thunderstorm life cycle. Mature cells are usually found at the center of the cluster and dissipating cells at the downwind edge. Multi-cell cluster storms can produce moderate-size Figure 15-1. Dissipating mammatus clouds following a thunderstorm (Source: Tetra Tech). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 110 hail, flash floods and weak tornadoes. Each cell in a multi-cell cluster lasts only about 20 minutes; the multi-cell cluster itself may persist for several hours. This type of storm is usually more intense than a single cell storm. • Multi-Cell Squall Line—A multi-cell line storm, or squall line, consists of a long line of storms with a continuous well-developed gust front at the leading edge. The line of storms can be solid, or there can be gaps and breaks in the line. Squall lines can produce hail up to golf-ball size, heavy rainfall, and weak tornadoes, but they are best known as the producers of strong downdrafts. Occasionally, a strong downburst will accelerate a portion of the squall line ahead of the rest of the line. This produces what is called a bow echo. Bow echoes can develop with isolated cells as well as squall lines. Bow echoes are easily detected on radar but are difficult to observe visually. • Super-Cell Storm—A super-cell is a highly organized thunderstorm that poses a high threat to life and property. It is similar to a single-cell storm in that it has one main updraft, but the updraft is extremely strong, reaching speeds of 150 to 175 miles per hour. Super-cells are rare. The main characteristic that sets them apart from other thunderstorms is the presence of rotation. The rotating updraft of a super- cell (called a mesocyclone when visible on radar) helps the super-cell to produce extreme weather events, such as giant hail (more than 2 inches in diameter), strong downbursts of 80 miles an hour or more, and strong to violent tornadoes. 15.1.2 Wind Storms Windstorms can include several types of damaging wind events and can affect the entire county or a localized area. . Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe weather reports in the lower 48 states and is more common than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles. Damaging winds also include less intense wind that cause dust storms, which are the most prevalent type of wind storm in eastern Washington. There are nine types of damaging winds reviewed during the planning process. • Tornado—A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Damage paths can be in excess of one-mile-wide and 50 miles long. Some tornadoes may form during the early stages of rapidly developing thunderstorms, and may appear nearly transparent until dust and debris are picked up. Occasionally, two or more tornadoes may occur at the same time. Compared with other States, Washington ranks number 43 for frequency of Tornadoes, 29 for number of deaths, 27 for injuries and 46 for cost of damages. • Straight-line winds—Any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation; this term is used mainly to differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms produce some straight- line winds as a result of outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft. • Downdrafts—A small-scale column of air that rapidly sinks toward the ground. • Downbursts—A strong downdraft with horizontal dimensions larger than 2.5 miles resulting in an outward burst or damaging winds on or near the ground. Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and spread out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers too weak to produce thunder. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 111 • Microbursts—A small concentrated downburst that produces an outward burst of damaging winds at the surface. Microbursts are generally less than 2.5 miles across and short-lived, lasting only 5 to 10 minutes, with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet microburst is accompanied by heavy precipitation at the surface. Dry microbursts, common in places like the high plains and the intermountain west, occur with little or no precipitation reaching the ground. • Gust front—A gust front is the leading edge of rain-cooled air that clashes with warmer thunderstorm inflow. Gust fronts are characterized by a wind shift, temperature drop, and gusty winds out ahead of a thunderstorm. Sometimes the winds push up air above them, forming a shelf cloud or detached roll cloud. • Derecho—A derecho is a widespread thunderstorm wind caused when new thunderstorms form along the leading edge of an outflow boundary (the boundary formed by horizontal spreading of thunderstorm-cooled air). The word “derecho” is of Spanish origin and means “straight ahead.” Thunderstorms feed on the boundary and continue to reproduce. Derechos typically occur in summer when complexes of thunderstorms form over plains, producing heavy rain and severe wind. The damaging winds can last a long time and cover a large area. • Bow Echo—A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straight- line winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for several hours, and produce extensive wind damage at the ground. • Dust Storms – A dust storm is a meteorological phenomenon common in arid and semi-arid regions. Dust storms arise when a gust front or other strong wind blows loose sand and dirt from a dry surface. Particles are transported by saltation and suspension, causing soil to move from one place and deposit in another. Dryland farming is the primary cause of dust storms in Grant County, since dryland farmers rely on rainfall to water their crops, they engage in practices to maintain moisture in the soil. Such practices include leaving a field fallow for a year after harvesting to allow the buildup of water to build in the soil and covering the field with dry earth in an attempt to seal in the underlying. These practices make dryland agriculture susceptible to dust storms. These methods are used by farmers in Eastern Washington, which is an arid region. Of particular concern with respect to dust storms is the amount of volcanic ash which was deposited by the 1980 eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. The eruption deposited ash fall over 50% of Grant County. This ash ranges from sand like particles, to minute particles that can be carried away by slightest breeze. When mixed with sand layers from dryland farming, this has caused significant issues within the County. Figure 15-2. Grant County Dust Storm, October 4, 2009. Source: NASA 2009. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 112 Figure 15-3. Impacts of severe damaging winds (Source: Tetra Tech). 15.1.3 Hail Storms Hail occurs when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere where they freeze into ice. Recent studies suggest that super-cooled water may accumulate on frozen particles near the back-side of a storm as they are pushed forward across and above the updraft by the prevailing winds near the top of the storm. Eventually, the hailstones encounter downdraft air and fall to the ground. The extent of hailstorms can vary significantly from year to year and can be greatly influenced by weather patterns and climate conditions. In severe cases hailstorm can cause significant damage over a localized region. In 2022, a hailstorm caused significant crop damage to wheat fields in Eastern Washington (Spokesman-Review, 2022). Hail falls in paths known as hail swaths; they can range in size from a few acres to an area 10 miles wide and 100 miles long (NOAA, 2023).The entire planning area of Grant County is susceptible to hail storms. Hailstones grow two ways: by wet growth or dry growth. In wet growth, a tiny piece of ice is in an area where the air temperature is below freezing, but not super cold. When the tiny piece of ice collides with a super-cooled drop, the water does not freeze on the ice immediately. Instead, liquid water spreads across tumbling hailstones and slowly freezes. Since the process is slow, air bubbles can escape, resulting in a layer of clear ice. Dry growth hailstones grow when the air temperature is well below freezing and the water droplet freezes immediately as it collides with the ice particle. The air bubbles are “frozen” in place, leaving cloudy ice. Hailstones can have layers like an onion if they travel up and down in an updraft, or they can have few or no layers if they are “balanced” in an updraft. One can tell how many times a hailstone traveled to the top of the storm by counting its layers. Hailstones can begin to melt and then re-freeze together, forming large and very irregularly shaped hail. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 113 15.1.4 Severe Winter Storms The entire planning area of Grant County is susceptible to severe winter storms. The range of extent for severe winter storms can vary significantly depending on the size and intensity of the storm. Winter storms can impact a wide area, covering hundreds of miles. These storms can impact entire states, regions, or even span across multiple states. Winter storms can bring heavy snowfall, strong winds, freezing rain, and freezing temperatures. The extent of severe winter storms is dependent on atmospheric conditions and the storm’s track (NOAA, 2023). Grant County’s severe winter storms are an effect of two primary factors, the strength of the jet stream and the effect of the Cascade Mountains on orographic precipitation from the Pacific Ocean’s marine air masses and the flow of the continental air masses. The jet stream strengthens through the fall and reaches its maximum strength in winter, but the strength, position and orientation can vary each year. Some winters can be mild and relatively dry, while others may be cold, wet and laden with severe winter storms depending on the positioning of the jet stream as it guides the marine and continental air masses. Winter storm impacts can be lessened or exacerbated by El Nino or La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Southeastern Washington receives much of its precipitation during the winter and early spring and cold, wet, snowy winters are often the result in Eastern Washington during La Nina years. When the jet stream sags south of Washington State, cold, dry wintertime continental air masses from Canada and the Arctic can sometimes blanket the entire Columbia Basin region. A cold wave is a weather phenomenon that is distinguished by a cooling of the air. Specifically, as used by the US National Weather Service, a cold wave is a rapid fall in temperature within a 24-hour period requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry, commerce, and social activities. The precise criterion for a cold wave is determined by the rate at which the temperature falls, and the minimum to which it falls. This minimum temperature is dependent on the geographical region and time of year. Cold waves generally are capable of occurring in any geological location and are formed by large cool air masses that accumulate over certain regions, caused by movements of air streams. A cold wave can cause death and injury to livestock and wildlife. Exposure to cold mandates greater caloric intake for all animals, including humans, and if a cold wave is accompanied by heavy and persistent snow, grazing animals may be unable to reach necessary food and water, and die of hypothermia or starvation. Cold waves often necessitate the purchase of fodder for livestock at considerable cost to farmers. Human populations can be inflicted with frostbites when exposed for extended periods of time to cold and may result in the loss of limbs or damage to internal organs. Cold waves that bring unexpected freezes and frosts during the growing season in mid-latitude zones can kill plants during the early and most vulnerable stages of growth. This results in crop failure as plants are killed before they can be harvested economically. Such cold waves have caused famines. Cold waves can also cause soil particles to harden and freeze, making it harder for plants and vegetation to grow within these areas. As the County is largely agricultural, these factors are of significant concern in potential losses sustained due to extreme cold-weather events. Fires, paradoxically, become more hazardous during extreme cold. Water mains may break and water supplies may become unreliable, making firefighting more difficult. A cold front can also trigger heavy snowfall. Snowfall tends to form within regions of upward motion of air around a type of low-pressure system known as an extratropical cyclone. When extratropical cyclones deposit heavy, wet snow with a snow-water equivalent (SWE) ratio of between 6:1 and 12:1 and a NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 114 weight in excess of 10 pounds per square foot (~50 kg/m2) piles onto trees or electricity lines, significant damage may occur on a scale usually associated with strong tropical cyclones. Large amounts of snow which accumulate on top of man-made structures can lead to structural failure. During snowmelt, acidic precipitation which previously fell in the snow pack is released and may harm aquatic life. 15.2 Hazard Profile 15.2.1 Past Events Table 15-1 summarizes severe weather events in Grant County since 1960, as recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National Weather Service confirmed it was an EF-zero tornado which destroyed a barn in unincorporated Grant County near Moses Lake on May 19, 2010. Tornado like damage has been noted in the county in the past, but it is believed this is the first tornado confirmed by the National Weather Service. (Grant County Emergency Management 2010 Operations Records). An October 4, 2009 dust storm caused visibility to drop to zero in parts of eastern Washington, as a large dust storm blew through. After numerous multi-vehicle accidents, sections of Interstate 90 near the town of Moses Lake and several local roads were closed for several hours. Grant County Emergency Management initiated the development of a joint Emergency Alert System message with neighboring Adams County to ask citizens not to travel. The storm reached gusts of 45mph. Approximately 25 vehicle accidents were reported in direct relation to the dust storm, some injuries were sustained. (Grant County Emergency management 2009 Operations records). Presidential Disaster Declaration #1682 included a severe winter wind storm that spread across the State of Washington on December 14-15, 2006. Damages were incurred in Grant County including downed power lines, toppled trees, rooftops torn from rafters and trusses, power outages lasting up to a week in the Quincy area, damaged irrigation circles, and road closures. There were damages at a local road district shop (lighting, fencing, signs) The National Weather Service had automated weather recording systems, however, none of these locations were in the most damaged areas. Wind gusts were recorded by these systems at 72 miles per hour, and a private resident recorded wind at 135 miles per hour. Reported losses were $865,100 for residential/commercial and $2,334,924 for government; totaling estimated loss at $3,200,024. An additional severe winter windstorm impacted Grant County on January 7, 2007 that produced similar damage. Reported losses were $308,000 for residential/commercial and $2,004,000 for government. 15.2.2 Location Severe weather events have the potential to happen anywhere in the Grant County planning area. Severe weather events can impact a wide region or a localized area. The maps at the end of this chapter show weather conditions over Grant County. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 115 15.2.3 Frequency The severe weather events for Grant County shown in Table 15-1 are often related to high winds associated with winter storms and thunderstorms, as well as tornadoes and dust storms. The planning area can expect to experience exposure to some type of severe weather event at least annually. Table 15-1. Severe Storm Events Impacting Planning Area Since 1960. Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 4/5/1972 Tornado (F2) 0 $25,000 (1972 values) 7/1/1979 Tornado (F0) 0 Unknown 8/10/1985 Tornado (F1) 0 Unknown 5/11/2003 Tornado (F0) 0 Unknown 5/19/2010 Tornado (F0) 0 $2,000 10/18/1991 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 11/3/1993 Dust Storm 1 injured Unknown 7/24/1994 Dust Storm 1 death/14 injured Unknown 10/4/2009 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 7/12/2010 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 8/25/2013 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 9/15/2013 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 8/12/2014 Dust Storm 0 $50,000 8/14/2015 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 8/29/2015 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 11/17/2015 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 10/02/2018 Dust Storm 0 Unknown 3/28/2021 Dust Storm 0 $80,000 6/28/1968 Hail 0 Unknown 9/17/1985 Hail 0 Unknown 5/31/1997 Thunderstorm/Hail 0 $15,000 7/10/1998 Hail 0 Unknown 7/21/1999 Thunderstorm/Hail 0 $15,000 6/27/2001 Hail 0 Unknown 4/30/2003 Hail 0 Unknown 5/20/2004 Hail 0 Unknown 5/4/2005 Hail 0 $50,000 7/1/2008 Hail 0 Unknown 6/12/2009 Hail 0 Unknown 6/23/2010 Hail 0 $50,000 7/20/2012 Hail 0 $1,000 6/1/2015 Hail 0 Unknown 7/14/1966 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 6/9/1969 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 8/9/1982 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 116 5/12/1988 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 5/31/1997 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $215,000 7/1998 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $15,000 7/21/1999 Thunderstorm/Wind/Hail 0 $15,000 6/27/2001 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 10/17/2004 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $30,000 4/23/2005 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 5/18/2006 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 7/12/2006 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 7/1/2008 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 6/4/2009 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $2,000 5/19/2010 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $1,000 7/20/2012 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $2,000 8/10/2013 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $20,000 8/25/2013 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $20,000 9/15/2013 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 5/30/2020 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 Unknown 6/5/2022 Thunderstorm/Wind 0 $6,000 11/3/1993 Severe Wind 0 Unknown 3/10/2020 Severe Wind 0 $50,000 4/4/2022 Severe Wind 0 $5,250,000 8/6/1999 Lightning 0 Unknown 8/21/1999 Lightning 0 Unknown 7/7/2002 Lightning 0 Unknown 5/18/2006 Lightning 0 Unknown 1967 Heatwave 0 Unknown 12/1996-02/1997 Disaster Declaration: 1159 Ice, Wind, Snow, Landslide, and Flooding 0 Unknown 12/14-12/15/2006 Disaster Declaration: 1682 Severe Winter Storm, Wind, Landslide, and Mudslides 0 $3,200,000 2/7/2007 Severe Winter Storm 0 $2,312,000 1/30/2017-2/22/2017 Disaster Declaration: 4309 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides 15.2.4 Severity The most common problems associated with severe storms are immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, ice or snow, or a landslide, or visibility can become an issue, such as during a dust storm. Power lines may be downed due to high winds or ice accumulation, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power. Lightning can cause severe damage and injury. High winds associated with thunderstorms have caused significant damage within the County as evidenced in Table 15-1. Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have been known to cause damage to utilities. The predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a one-minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30% higher. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 117 Within the planning area, dust storms caused by dryland farming are also a significant concern, and, as in the 1994 dust storm, has a high potential for life safety. Tornadoes are potentially the most dangerous of local storms, but they are not common in the planning area. If a major tornado were to strike within the populated areas of the county, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period or permanently, fatalities could be high, many people could be homeless for an extended period, and routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted. Buildings may be damaged or destroyed. 15.2.5 Warning Time Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe storm. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. 15.3 Secondary Hazards The most significant secondary hazards associated with severe local storms are floods, falling and downed trees, landslides and downed power lines. Rapidly melting snow combined with heavy rain can overwhelm both natural and man-made drainage systems, causing overflow and property destruction. Landslides occur when the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails. 15.4 Climate Change Impacts Climate change presents a significant challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The frequency of severe weather events has increased steadily over the last century. The number of weather-related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in economic losses. Historical data shows that the probability for severe weather events increases in a warmer climate (see Figure 15-5). The changing hydrograph caused by climate change could have a significant impact on the intensity, duration and frequency of storm events. All of these impacts could have significant economic consequences. Figure 15-5. Severe Weather Probabilities in Warmer Climates. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 118 15.5 Exposure 15.5.1 Population A lack of data separating severe weather damage from flooding and landslide damage prevented a detailed analysis for exposure and vulnerability. However, it can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to severe weather events. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out, while populations in low-lying areas are at risk for possible flooding. 15.5.2 Property According to the Grant County Assessor, there are 36,576 buildings within the census tracts that define the planning area. Most of these buildings are residential. It is estimated that 30% of the residential structures were built without the influence of a structure building code with provisions for wind loads. All of these buildings are considered to be exposed to the severe weather hazard, but structures in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations (located on hilltops or exposed open areas) may risk the most damage. The frequency and degree of damage will depend on specific locations. 15.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities within Grant County are exposed to severe weather. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities at critical facilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas isolated. Phone, water and sewer systems may not function. For emergency responders, roads may become impassable due to ice or snow or from secondary hazards such as landslides. 15.5.4 Environment The environment is highly exposed to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are exposed to the elements during a severe storm and risk major damage and destruction. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flooding events caused by severe weather or snowmelt can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat. Heavy rainfall can cause erosion and redistribute sediment loads. 15.6 Vulnerability 15.6.1 Population Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income, or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during severe weather events and could suffer more secondary effects of the hazard. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 119 15.6.2 Property All property is vulnerable during severe weather events, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those in higher elevations and on ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Those that are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees may be vulnerable to falling ice or may be damaged in the event of a collapse. Loss estimations for the severe weather hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10%, 30%, and 50% of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of potential economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50% is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 15-2 lists the loss estimates to the general building stock. Table 15-2. Buildings Damage Values from Severe Weather Hazard. City Assessed Value 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Coulee City $54,785,488 $5,478,548 $16,435,646 $27,392,744 Electric City $115,820,345 $11,582,034 $34,740,103 $57,910,172 Ephrata $985,025,205 $98,502,520 $295,507,562 $492,512,602 George $60,471,848 $6,047,184 $18,142,454 $30,237,424 Grand Coulee $119,879,388 $11,987,938 $35,963,816 $59,939,694 Hartline $18,327,343 $1,832,734 $5,498,202 $9,163,671 Krupp $8,963,483 $896,349 $2,689,044 $4,481,741 Mattawa $178,461,668 $17,836,166 $53,538,500 $89,230,834 Moses Lake $4,127,514,678 $412,751,467 $1,238,254,403 $2,063,757,339 Quincy $4,538,146,060 $453,814,606 $1,361,443,818 $2,269,073,030 Royal City $179,030,143 $17,903,014 $53,709,042 $89,515,071 Soap Lake $189,701,330 $18,970,133 $56,910,399 $94,850,665 Warden $408,845,108 $40,884,510 $122,653,532 $204,442,554 Wilson Creek $24,171,225 $2,417,122 $7,251,367 $12,085,612 Unincorporated $6,592,914,410 $659,291,441 $1,977,874,323 $3,296,457,205 Total $17,602,057,718 $1,760,205,771 $5,280,617,315 $8,801,028,859 15.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures resulting from severe weather, mostly associated with secondary hazards. Landslides caused by heavy prolonged rains can block roads are. High winds can cause significant damage to trees and power lines, blocking roads with debris, incapacitating transportation, isolating population, and disrupting ingress and egress. Snowstorms in higher elevations can significantly impact the transportation system and the availability of public safety services. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and to the elderly. Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to landslides, snow, debris or floodwaters can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts for an entire region. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 120 Severe windstorms, downed trees, and ice can create serious impacts on power and above-ground communication lines. Freezing of power and communication lines can cause them to break, disrupting electricity and communication. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave certain populations isolated because residents would be unable to call for assistance. 15.6.4 Environment The vulnerability of the environment to severe weather is the same as the exposure. 15.7 Future Trends in Development A higher population density can lead to more people being affected by severe weather, increasing the potential for injuries, casualties, and strain on emergency services. In addition, evacuation and relief efforts may become more difficult with a larger population. All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The planning partners have adopted the International Building Code in response to Washington mandates. This code is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events, such as requiring more stringent building standards for areas with a high probability of strong winds or heavy snowfall. Land use policies identified in comprehensive plans within the planning area also address many of the secondary impacts (flood and landslide) of the severe weather hazard. With these tools, the planning partnership is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather. Additional past experience has demonstrated the need for increased payload capacity for roof structures, and the County has undertaken steps to increase the capacity for snow loads within their Building Code requirements. 15.8 Scenario Although severe local storms are infrequent, impacts can be significant, particularly when secondary hazards of flood and landslide occur. A worst-case event would involve prolonged high winds during a winter storm accompanied by thunderstorms. Such an event would have both short-term and longer- term effects. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. Prolonged rain could produce flooding, overtopped culverts with ponded water on roads, and landslides on steep slopes. Flooding and landslides could further obstruct roads and bridges, further isolating residents. 15.9 Issues Important issues associated with a severe weather in the Grant County planning area include the following: • Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe weather events such as windstorms or a severe weather invent which includes high snow accumulations because of the load factor on roofs. • Redundancy of power supply must be evaluated. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 121 • The capacity for backup power generation is limited. • Isolated population centers. • Increased susceptibility of agriculture and livestock to extreme cold weather can have a substantial economic impact. Map 15-1. Grant County Average Annual Precipitation. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 122 Map 15-2. Grant County Average Maximum Temperature. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 123 Map 15-3. Grant County Average Minimum Temperature. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 124 CHAPTER 16 VOLCANO 16.1 General Background Hazards related to volcanic eruptions are distinguished by the different ways in which volcanic materials and other debris are emitted from the volcano. The molten rock that erupts from a volcano (lava) forms a hill or mountain around the vent. The lava may flow out as a viscous liquid, or it may explode from the vent as solid or liquid particles. Ash and fragmented rock material can become airborne and travel far from the erupting volcano to affect distant areas. The range of extent can vary significantly depending on the type of volcano, its eruption style, and the specific volcanic event. There are no active volcanoes located within Grant County, however, the entire county may be indirectly impacted by volcanic activity in neighboring regions. Volcanic ash from eruptions could potentially impact the air quality, surface waters, and infrastructure county-wide. 16.2 Hazard Profile 16.2.1 Past Events Figure 16-1 and Table 16-1 summarize past eruptions in the Cascades. In the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption, 23 square miles of volcanic material buried the North Fork of the Toutle River and there were 57 human fatalities. While Grant County has no active volcanoes within its boundaries, when the May 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens occurred, the explosive event deposited ash fall over 50% of Grant County. That ash ranged from sand like particles to minute particles that at present date can still be whisked away by slightest breeze. This has increased the issue with wind and dust storms within the County. 16.2.2 Location Figure 16-1 shows the location of the Cascade Range volcanoes, most of which have the potential to produce a significant eruption. The Cascade Range extends more than 1,000 miles from southern British Columbia into northern California and includes 13 potentially active volcanic peaks in the US Figure 16-2 shows probabilities of tephra accumulation from Cascade volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest (tephra is fragmented rock material ejected by a volcanic explosion). DEFINITIONS Lahar—A rapidly flowing mixture of water and rock debris that originates from a volcano. While lahars are most commonly associated with eruptions, heavy rains, and debris accumulation, earthquakes may also trigger them. Lava Flow—The least hazardous threat posed by volcanoes. Cascades volcanoes are normally associated with slow moving andesite or dacite lava. Stratovolcano—Typically steep-sided, symmetrical cones of large dimension built of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, blocks, and bombs, rising as much as 8,000 feet above their bases. The volcanoes in the Cascade Range are all stratovolcanoes. Tephra—Ash and fragmented rock material ejected by a volcanic explosion Volcano—A vent in the planetary crust from which magma (molten or hot rock) and gas from the earth’s core erupts. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 125 Grant County lays down-wind from Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Hood, and Mt. Adams. The County could also be inflicted with results from a volcanic eruption from Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker, and Glacier Peak. Depending on the event and wind direction, the entire County or potions of the County could be at risk from one of these eruptions. Figure 16-1. Past Eruptions in the Cascade Range. 16.2.3 Frequency Many Cascade volcanoes have erupted in the recent past and will be active again in the foreseeable future. Given an average rate of one or two eruptions per century during the past 12,000 years, these disasters are not part of our everyday experience; however, in the past hundred years, California’s Lassen Peak and Washington’s Mt. St. Helens have erupted with terrifying results. The US Geological Survey classifies Glacier Peak, Mt. Adams, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens, and Mt. Rainier as potentially active volcanoes in Washington State. Mt. St. Helens is by far the most active volcano in the Cascades, with four major explosive eruptions in the last 515 years. Figure 16-2 shows the annual probability of a tephra, or ash, accumulation of 10 centimeters or more (about 4 inches) and Figure 16-3 show the elevations within Washington state. The probably of ash accumulations of 10 centimeters or more within Grant County ranges from 0.02-0.01% in any given year. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 126 Figure 16-2. Probability of Tephra Accumulation in Pacific Northwest. Figure 16-3. Cascade Mountains and Volcanoes. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 127 16.2.4 Severity The explosive disintegration of Mt. St. Helens’ north flank in 1980 vividly demonstrated the power that Cascade volcanoes can unleash. A one-inch deep layer of ash weighs an average of 10 pounds per square foot, causing danger of structural collapse. Ash is harsh, acidic, and gritty, and it has a sulfuric odor. Ash may also carry a high static charge for up to two days after being ejected from a volcano. When an ash cloud combines with rain, sulfur dioxide in the cloud combines with the rain water to form diluted sulfuric acid that may cause minor, but painful burns to the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. 16.2.5 Warning Time Constant monitoring of all active volcanoes means that there will be more than adequate time for evacuation before an event. Since 1980, Mt. St. Helens has settled into a pattern of intermittent, moderate and generally non-explosive activity, and the severity of tephra, explosions, and lava flows have diminished. All episodes, except for one very small event in 1984, have been successfully predicted several days to three weeks in advance. However, scientists remain uncertain as to whether the volcano’s current cycle of explosivity ended with the 1980 explosion. The possibility of further large- scale events continues for the foreseeable future. 16.3 Secondary Hazards The secondary hazards associated with volcanic eruptions are customarily mud flows and landslides, as well as traffic disruptions and increased issues with respect to dust storms recirculating the ash. 16.4 Climate Change Impacts Large-scale volcanic eruptions can reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, lowering temperatures in the lower atmosphere and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate patterns for years. Sulfuric gases convert to sub-micron droplets containing about 75% sulfuric acid. These particles can linger three to four years in the stratosphere. Volcanic clouds absorb terrestrial radiation and scatter a significant amount of incoming solar radiation, an effect that can last from two to three years following a volcanic eruption. 16.5 Exposure and Vulnerability Grant County lays down-wind from Mt. St. Helens, Mt Hood, and Mt. Adams. The County could also be inflicted with results from a volcanic eruption from Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker, and Glacier Peak. Ash fallout from the explosive events of volcano's can inflict upon the county as much devastations as a severe winter storm. Transportation, utilities and communication can be interrupted and masses of people stranded. The clean-up from ash fall will inflict enormous economic loss. Additionally, because of the County’s dryland farming, the ash continues to be an issue years later, as is the case with Mt. St. Helens ash which still produces dust storms in the County. 16.5.1 Population The whole population of Grant County is exposed to the effects of a tephra fall. The populations most NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 128 vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall are the elderly, the very young and those already experiencing ear, nose and throat problems. Homeless people, who may lack adequate shelter, are also vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall, although Grant County has a small population of homeless people who would not be able to find adequate shelter or assistance during an event. Of significant concern is the issue with dust storms, and the recirculating of the ash during such times, causing health concerns and concerns for crops, which would have an economic impact upon the population. 16.5.2 Property All of the property and infrastructure exposed to nature in the County are exposed to the effects of a tephra fall. Vulnerable property includes equipment and machinery left out in the open, such as combines, whose parts can become clogged by the fine dust. Additionally, roofs may not be built to withstand the weight of ash, especially when mixed with rain or snow, which would increase its weight. This could potentially impact both public and private structures. Infrastructure, such as drainage systems, are also potentially vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall, since the fine ash can clog pipes and culverts. This may be more of a problem if an eruption occurs during winter or early spring when precipitation is highest and floods are most likely. To estimate the loss potential for this hazard, a qualitative approach was used, based on recommendations from the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guides. Loss estimation tools such as HAZUS-MH currently do not have the ability to analyze impacts from volcano hazards. 16.5.3 Environment The environment is highly exposed to the effects of a volcanic eruption. Even if the related ash fall from a volcanic eruption were to fall elsewhere, it could still be spread throughout the County by the surrounding rivers and streams. A volcanic blast would expose the local environment to many effects such as lower air quality, and many other elements that could harm local vegetation and water quality. 16.6 Future Trends in Development As the population continues to increase, so does the level of exposure and vulnerability of the population within Grant County. All future development has the potential of being impacted by ash fall generated from volcanic events. The weight of the ash should be taken into consideration when new construction occurs to ensure reduced impact from damaging events by strengthening the load values of roofs. In addition, expanding infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and buildings may be at risk of damage or destruction during eruptions, especially if they are not designed to withstand volcanic hazards like ashfall. Increased development will put more strain on public works department and other first responders who must respond in adverse conditions. 16.7 Scenario In the event of a volcanic eruption in Grant County, while there would probably not be any loss of life due to adequate warnings, the potential does exist due to the relatively large amounts of ash fall which occurred during the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. The elderly, the young, and individuals with breathing problems would be at greater risk of impact. There would also be loss of use property and crops due to ash and sulfuric acid developing when the ash mixes with rain or snow. The economic impact from ash NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 129 fall and the continuing issue of ash becoming airborne as a result of dust storms would continue for years into the future. People and animals without shelter would be affected, as would farm equipment which was left out in the open. 16.8 Issues Since volcanic episodes have been fairly predictable in the recent past, there is not as much concern about loss of life than there is about loss of property and infrastructure and severe environmental impacts. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 130 CHAPTER 17 WILDFIRE 17.1 General Background A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitats. Short-term loss caused by a wildfire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Long-term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure. Vulnerability to flooding increases due to the destruction of watersheds. The potential for significant damage to life and property exists in areas designated as “wildland urban interface (WUI) areas,” where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas. 17.2 Hazard Profile 17.2.1 Past Events Grant County has a rich fire history. In 1996 Grant County required a state mobilization for the Baird Springs fire. Other major wildland fires that have needed outside assistance are: 1998 Lower Crab Creek, 1999 Sheep Canyon, 1998 Wahitis Peak, and the 1999 Baird Springs fire. The 2000 fire season was the worst since the fires in 1994. The Governor signed a proclamation early in the season because the Northwest was experiencing a disastrous fire season. The proclamation authorized firefighting training for the National Guard in the event federal, state and local firefighting resources would be unable to handle the fires. More recent state mobilization fires within Grant County include: 2006 Rocky Ford, 2007 Seep Lakes, 2008 Willows Creek, 2009 Grant County Complex, 2012 Barker Canyon, 2018 Buckshot Fire and Grass Valley Fire. DEFINITIONS Conflagration—A fire that grows beyond its original source area to engulf adjoining regions. Wind, extremely dry or hazardous weather conditions, excessive fuel buildup and explosions are usually the elements behind a wildfire conflagration. Firestorm—A fire that expands to cover a large area, often more than a square mile. A firestorm usually occurs when many individual fires grow together into one. The involved area becomes so hot that all combustible materials ignite, even if they are not exposed to direct flame. Temperatures may exceed 1000°C. Superheated air and hot gases of combustion rise over the fire zone, drawing surface winds in from all sides, often at velocities approaching 50 miles per hour. Although firestorms seldom spread because of the inward direction of the winds, once started there is no known way of stopping them. Within the area of the fire, lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide are present; combined with the intense heat, this poses a serious life threat to responding fire forces. In very large events, the rising column of heated air and combustion gases carries enough soot and particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to cause cloud nucleation, creating a locally intense thunderstorm and the hazard of lightning strikes. Interface Area—An area susceptible to wildfires and where wildland vegetation and urban or suburban development occur together. An example would be smaller urban areas and dispersed rural housing in forested areas. Wildfire—Fires that result in uncontrolled destruction of forests, brush, field crops, grasslands, and real and personal property in non-urban areas. Because of their distance from firefighting resources, they can be difficult to contain and can cause a great deal of destruction. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 131 17.2.2 Location A wildfire or major brush fire could occur anywhere within Grant County. Likewise, because of the significant amount agricultural lands and the dryland farming practiced within the county, fires could easily spread. The County also participates in the Conservation Reserve Program, where large areas of cultivated land are fallow. The purpose of this program is to pay farmers to not cultivate lands which are highly erodible, and thus maintain the usable life of the soil. Wildfires can also occur on lands that are used as pasture or open range. As there is limited precipitation that falls, all these factors could have significant impact on the County and its jurisdictions. The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan does not reference Grant County as a high wildfire risk area; the County is identified as low risk for wildfires. Map 17-1 illustrates the fire regime areas for Grant County. 17.2.3 Frequency Wildland fires responded to by city and county departments are largely started by human causes. Some of human causes for wild land fires may include: cigarettes, fireworks, and outdoor burning. Passing trains are known to cause sparks that can trigger wildfires. Wild land fires started by heat spark ember or flames caused the largest dollar loss, followed by debris burning and cigarettes. Loss per incident is three times higher than any other fire cause. Of concern within Grant County are the hazardous materials stored countywide. Pesticides and fertilizers used in the agricultural industry can cause significant hazards should a location storing such materials burn. In an effort to combat fires, Grant County participates in the Mid-Columbia Region Fire Plan, which includes Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan Counties. The purpose is to pool resources to assist the county and its surrounding jurisdictions in fighting fires throughout the designated region. Grant County has been fortunate in that it has not experienced any large-scale fires which have caused death, injury, and loss to community infrastructure, businesses, and homes. Grant County typically has wildland fires annually including the burning of great abundances of dry vegetation. During wet winters and springs, the growth of wild vegetation greatly enhances wildland fire risks when the vegetation dries out. Many wildland fires which have occurred destroyed thousands of acres of land. Some of these fires have involved crops of wheat, barley, and field corn. Grant County has a Fire Mobilization Plan, which has been activated several times in an effort to gain control of fires. The major fires to impact the County are as follows: • Barker Canyon Complex: State Fire Mobilization was necessary for the Barker Canyon Complex wild land fire in September 2012, which included the Leahy Junction Fire in Grant and Douglas Counties. Approximately 90,000 acres were involved. A local Proclamation of Emergency was declared by the Board of County Commissioners in Grant County. Additionally, the Governor declared a State of Emergency for all counties east of the Cascade Mountains to deploy additional state resources. • Monument Hill Fire: In September of 2010, a fire burned northwest of Quincy, requiring air support from the Department of Natural Resources and approximately 40 apparatus from Grant, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 132 Chelan, and Douglas Counties. The Emergency Operations Center at Grant County Emergency Management was activated in a supportive effort (Grant County Emergency Management State Issued Mission Number Archives (Mission # 10-2957 and # 12-3389) Emergency Proclamation Record September 10, 2012 and WA State Emergency Management Emergency Operations Center Sit-Rep). • Grant County Complex Fire: On August 21, 2009 the Grant County Board of Commissioners signed a local Declaration of Emergency for the Grant County Complex Fire, which went to State Mobilization level to include ten wildland strike teams, four 20-person hand crews and a helicopter to support local firefighting resources. The complex fire included three separate fires that threatened 40 homes. • August 2-3, 1996 Baird Springs Fire: This wild land fire spread over 14,000 acres and required the declaration of State Fire Resource Mobilization assistance. The fire required aerial fire- fighting strategy including four United States Forest Service aircraft and two Department of Natural Resources helicopters. • July 14, 1987 Sun Lakes State Park Fire: This wild land fire consumed 24,000 acres within a 38 square mile area threatening the Town of Coulee City. Grant County Fire Protection District #7 and Coulee City Fire Department requested mutual aid from seven neighboring jurisdictions to fight the flames driven by 20 m.p.h. wind gusts. The estimated loss in equipment owned by the fire departments, fencing, grazing lands and personnel costs totaled $296,500.00. • Wahitis Peak, 1998 • Lower Crab Creek, 1998 • Sheep Canyon,1999 • Black Rock, and Beasley Hill, and Rocky Ford Fires, 2006 • Weather Station Fire, 2005 • Seep Lakes, 2007 • Overlook, 2007 • Willows Creek Fire, 2008 • Saddle Lakes Fire, 2015 • I-90, 2015 • Sunland, 2016 • Lower Crab Creek, 2016 • East Saddle, 2017 • Monument Hill, 2017 • Southerland Fire, 2017 • Soap Lake, 2018 • L Road SW, 2018 • Quincy Lake, 2018 • Wahluke Slope, 2018 • 243 Command, 2019 • Powerline, 2019 • Saddle Mountain, 2020 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 133 Small, minor brush fires can be expected at least every year, especially during the dry hot summer months. Many of these are caused by human carelessness, such as from fireworks or cigarettes tossed from vehicles. 17.2.4 Severity Risk to communities is generally determined by the number, size and types of wildfires that have historically affected the area; topography; fuel and weather; suppression capability of local and regional resources; where and what types of structures are in the WUI and; what types of pre-fire mitigation activities have been completed. Identifying areas most at risk to fire or to determine the course a fire takes requires precise science. It is not the intent of this plan to make those assumptions. Datasets necessary to conduct that type of analysis are limited for the County. Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources. Within Grant County the vast majority of the land area is used for agricultural purposes. All of these areas are vulnerable to wild land or wild land-urban interface fires. Most of the land areas of Grant County receive about 8-10 inches of rainfall annually. This dry climate and the frequent occurrence of strong, dry winds can cause natural fire fuels to reach a combustible state. Additionally, high summer temperatures coupled with seasonal low rainfall amounts sometimes lead to summer drought conditions in the agricultural industry, which occur frequently within the County. While there has been a lack of ignition during times of serious fire danger in Grant County, the absence of large fires coupled with reduced burning has also resulted in greater fuel loading which could lead to a catastrophic fire given the right set of conditions with respect to natural fire regimes. Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds. Irrigated farmlands, improved fire spotting techniques, better equipment, and trained personnel are major factors in the fairly small number of wildland fires that have occurred in the county. 17.2.5 Warning Time Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm. If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire’s peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 134 reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two-way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to a significant improvement in warning time. 17.3 Secondary Hazards Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding. In addition, the following secondary effects are possible; rehabilitation efforts after a fire occurs can reduce but cannot eliminate them: • Damaged Fisheries—Critical trout fisheries throughout the west and salmon and steelhead fisheries in the Pacific Northwest can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality and chemistry. • Flooding—Most wildland fires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This results in an increase in runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding. • Soil Erosion—Fires remove the protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species. For instance, the Biscuit Fire in Oregon destroyed 125,000 to 150,000 acres of spotted owl habitat. • Soil Sterilization—Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellent, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. 17.4 Climate Change Impacts Fire in western ecosystems is determined by climate variability, local topography, and human intervention. Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 135 Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods. Historically, drought patterns in the West are related to large-scale climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the Pacific varies on a 5- to 7- year cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30-year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a 65- to 80-year cycle. As these large-scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought conditions in the US shift from region to region. El Niño years bring drier conditions to the Pacific Northwest and more fires. Climate scenarios project summer temperature increases between 2°C and 5°C and precipitation decreases of up to 15%. Such conditions would exacerbate summer drought and further promote high- elevation wildfires, releasing stores of carbon and further contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Forest response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide—the so-called “fertilization effect”— could also contribute to more tree growth and thus more fuel for fires, but the effects of carbon dioxide on mature forests are still largely unknown. High carbon dioxide levels should enhance tree recovery after fire and young forest regrowth, as long as sufficient nutrients and soil moisture are available, although the latter is in question for many parts of the western United States because of climate change. 17.5 Exposure 17.5.1 Population Population was estimated using the structure count of buildings in the Regime area and applying the census value of 3 persons per household for Grant County. These estimates are shown in Table 17-1. Table 17-1. Population Estimates Within Fire Regime Zones. Regime I Regime III Regime IV Buildings Population Buildings Population Buildings Population Coulee City 0 560 3 560 330 560 Electric City 1 955 0 955 480 955 Ephrata 2 8,575 2,833 8,575 181 8,575 George 3 815 13 815 141 815 Grand Coulee 4 970 0 970 571 970 Hartline 5 180 0 180 106 180 Krupp 1 50 26 50 9 50 Mattawa 0 3,340 0 3,340 466 3,340 Moses Lake 1 25,760 4,849 25,760 2,966 25,760 Quincy 2 7,720 1,911 7,720 311 7,720 Royal City 3 1,855 29 1,855 357 1,855 Soap Lake 4 1,695 56 1,695 744 1,695 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 136 Regime I Regime III Regime IV Buildings Population Buildings Population Buildings Population Warden 5 2,485 773 2,485 1 2,485 Wilson Creek 1 205 57 205 82 205 Unincorporated 67 45,635 8,308 45,635 8,173 45,635 Total 99 100,800 18,858 100,800 14,918 100,800 17.5.2 Property Property damage from wildfires can be severe and can significantly alter entire communities. Tables 17- 2 through Table 17-4 display the number of homes in the various Regime zones within the planning area and their values. Table 17-2. Planning Area Structures Exposed to Regime I, 0-35 Years, Low to Mixed Severity. Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total % of AV Coulee City 0 0 0 0 0.00% Electric City 1 0 0 0 0.00% Ephrata 2 0 0 0 0.00% George 3 0 0 0 0.00% Grand Coulee 4 0 0 0 0.00% Hartline 5 0 0 0 0.00% Krupp 1 $48,130 $24,065 $72,195 0.81% Mattawa 0 0 0 0 0.00% Moses Lake 1 0 0 0 0.00% Quincy 2 0 0 00 0.00% Royal City 3 0 0 0 0.00% Soap Lake 4 0 0 0 0.00% Warden 5 0 0 0 0.00% Wilson Creek 1 $55,935 $27,968 $83,903 0.35% Unincorporated 67 $14,010,525 $9,896,125 $23,906,650 0.36% Total 99 $14,114,590 $9,948,158 $24,062,748 0.14% NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 137 Table 17-3. Planning Area Structures Exposed to Regime III, 35-200 Years, Low to Mixed Severity. Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total % of AV Coulee City 3 $241,260 $120,630 $361,890 0.66% Electric City 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Ephrata 2,833 $552,622,695 $368,449,653 $921,072,348 93.51% George 13 $6,797,135 $6,658,703 $13,455,838 22.25% Grand Coulee 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Hartline 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Krupp 26 $2,319,035 $1,546,130 $3,865,165 43.12% Mattawa 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Moses Lake 4,849 $1,522,754,010 $1,125,173,068 $2,647,927,078 64.15% Quincy 1,911 $1,859,404,145 $1,707,850,408 $3,567,254,553 78.61% Royal City 29 $5,045,285 $3,040,355 $8,085,640 4.52% Soap Lake 56 $4,152,775 $2,938,118 $7,090,893 3.74% Warden 773 $220,773,245 $186,542,123 $407,315,368 99.63% Wilson Creek 57 $4,191,970 $3,063,498 $7,255,468 30.02% Unincorporated 8,308 $1,922,840,555 $1,278,199,603 $3,201,040,158 48.55% Total 18,858 $6,101,142,110 $4,683,582,285 $10,784,724,395 61.27% Table 17-4. Planning Area Structures Exposed to Regime IV, 35-200 Years, Replacement Severity. Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total % of AV Coulee City 330 $31,890,345 $19,095,913 $50,986,258 93.07% Electric City 480 $64,812,840 $39,260,165 $104,073,005 89.86% Ephrata 181 $30,995,170 $16,757,020 $47,752,190 4.85% George 141 $26,816,250 $20,199,760 $47,016,010 77.75% Grand Coulee 571 $67,346,240 $47,768,538 $115,114,778 96.03% Hartline 106 $10,006,005 $7,221,545 $17,227,550 94.00% Krupp 9 $635,675 $322,463 $958,138 10.69% Mattawa 466 $101,690,260 $76,771,408 $178,461,668 100.00% Moses Lake 2,966 $872,835,060 $587,291,103 $1,460,126,163 35.38% Quincy 311 $453,634,100 $432,055,488 $885,689,588 19.52% Royal City 357 $94,487,395 $72,027,815 $166,515,210 93.01% Soap Lake 744 $107,613,485 $72,673,395 $180,286,880 95.04% Warden 1 $764,870 $764,870 $1,529,740 0.37% Wilson Creek 82 $9,173,095 $7,289,788 $16,462,883 68.11% Unincorporated 8,173 $1,840,261,910 $1,181,506,810 $3,021,768,720 45.83% Total 14,918 $3,712,962,700 $2,581,006,078 $6,293,968,778 35.76% NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 138 17.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to the majority of critical transportation infrastructure within Grant County. Most road and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk to wildfire because most are made of wood and susceptible to burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines and facilities that store hazardous materials could provide a source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic explosion. During a wildfire event, these materials could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition, they could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the environment. Table 17-5. Critical Facilities Exposed to Wildfire Hazards. Regime I Regime III Regime IV Medical and Health Services 4 8 3 Government Function 8 46 16 Protective Function 9 24 12 Schools 12 50 15 Other Critical Function 26 76 45 Bridges 65 133 49 Water 2 10 1 Wastewater 1 4 2 Power 2 7 3 Communications 4 8 6 Hazardous Materials 1 99 64 Total 150 371 105 17.5.4 Environment Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental impacts: • Damaged Fisheries—Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality. • Soil Erosion—The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 139 management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species. • Soil Sterilization—Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence. These patterns, called “fire regimes,” include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability. Ecosystem stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from its range of natural variability. 17.5.5 Historic Fire Regime Alterations of historic fire regimes and vegetation dynamics have occurred in many landscapes in the US, including Grant County through the combined influence of land management practices, fire exclusion, insect and disease outbreaks, climate change, and the invasion of non-native plant species. Anthropogenic influences to wildfire occurrence have been witnessed through arson, incidental ignition from industry (e.g., logging, railroad, sporting activities), and other factors. Likewise, wildfire abatement practices have reduced the spread of wildfires after ignition. This has reduced the risk to both the ecosystem and the urban populations living in or near forestlands, such as the Grant County. The LANDFIRE Project produces maps of simulated historical fire regimes and vegetation conditions using the LANDSUM landscape succession and disturbance dynamics model. The LANDFIRE Project also produces maps of current vegetation and measurements of current vegetation departure from simulated historical reference conditions. These maps support fire and landscape management planning outlined in the goals of the National Fire Plan, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The Simulated Historical Mean Fire Return Interval (MFRI) data layer quantifies the average number of years between fires under the presumed historical fire regime. This data layer is derived from vegetation and disturbance dynamics simulations using LANDSUM. LANDSUM simulates fire dynamics as a function of vegetation dynamics, topography, and spatial context, in addition to variability introduced by dynamic wind direction and speed, frequency of extremely dry years, and landscape-level fire characteristics. The Simulated Historical Fire Regime Groups utilized in LANDFIRE (HFRG, 2006), categorize simulated MFRI and fire severities into five fire regimes defined in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook, as follows: • Regime 1: 0-35-year frequency, low to mixed severity • Regime II: 0-35-year frequency, replacement severity • Regime III: 35-200-year frequency, low to mixed severity • Regime IV: 35-200-year frequency, replacement severity • Regime V: 200+ year frequency, any severity NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 140 17.6 Vulnerability Structures, above-ground infrastructure, critical facilities and natural environments are all vulnerable to the wildfire hazard. There is currently no validated damage function available to support wildfire mitigation planning. Except as discussed in this section, vulnerable populations, property, infrastructure and environment are assumed to be the same as described in the section on exposure. 17.6.1 Population There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from wildfires within the planning area. Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal; therefore, injuries and casualties were not estimated for the wildfire hazard. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. 17.6.2 Property Loss estimations for the wildfire hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10%, 30% and 50 % of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50% is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 17-6 lists the loss estimates for the general building stock for jurisdictions that have an exposure to a wildfire Regime zones. 17.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable during wildfire events. In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk from wildfire because most poles are made of wood and susceptible to burning. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access and can isolate residents and emergency service providers. Wildfire typically does not have a major direct impact on bridges, but it can create conditions in which bridges are obstructed. Many bridges in areas of high to moderate fire risk are important because they provide the only ingress and egress to large areas and in some cases to isolated neighborhoods. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 141 Table 17-6. Buildings Vulnerable to Wildfire Hazards. City Assessed Value 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Coulee City 34,983,000 3,498,300 10,494,900 17,491,500 Electric City 82,763,000 8,276,300 24,828,900 41,381,500 Ephrata 591,108,000 59,110,800 177,332,400 295,554,000 George 22,363,000 2,236,300 6,708,900 11,181,500 Grand Coulee 76,731,000 7,673,100 23,019,300 38,365,500 Hartline 11,020,000 1,102,000 3,306,000 5,510,000 Krupp 5,395,000 539,500 1,618,500 2,697,500 Mattawa 86,170,000 8,617,000 25,851,000 43,085,000 Moses Lake 1,576,495,000 157,649,500 472,948,500 788,247,500 Quincy 405,231,000 40,523,100 121,569,300 202,615,500 Royal City 56,591,000 5,659,100 16,977,300 28,295,500 Soap Lake 109,303,000 10,930,300 32,790,900 54,651,500 Warden 107,485,000 10,748,500 32,245,500 53,742,500 Wilson Creek 16,492,000 1,649,200 4,947,600 8,246,000 Unincorporated 4,408,289,000 440,828,900 1,322,486,700 2,204,144,500 Total 7,590,419,000 759,041,900 2,277,125,700 3,795,209,500 17.7 Future Trends in Development Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. As more people move into the wildland urban interface areas, the likelihood of human-caused ignitions greatly increases. In addition, as homes and buildings are built in the WUI, the complexity of firefighting efforts and potential for damage to homes and infrastructure increases. One of the prominent changes in firefighter efforts will be on protecting structures, which may divert resources from controlling the wildfire spread. However, the expansion of the wildland urban interface can be managed with strong land use and building codes. If the County implements these codes and focuses on the important of defensible spaces, the exposure to this hazard may remain as assessed or even decrease over time due to these capabilities. For example, the expansion of urbanization in the WUI may help prevent wildfires through the clearing of vegetation and ground fuels. Furthermore, strong fire-resistant building codes can be implemented, which may help suppress wildfire risk. The County’s outreach program includes educating homeowners on how to promote a defensible space around their home, ways to reduce ignition risk, and programs to educate the community on wildfire preparedness. 17.8 Scenario A major conflagration in Grant County might begin with a wet spring, adding to fuels already present. Flashy fuels would build throughout the spring. The summer could see the onset of insect infestation. A dry summer could follow the wet spring, exacerbated by dry hot winds. Carelessness with combustible materials or a tossed lit cigarette, or a sudden lighting storm could trigger a multitude of small isolated fires. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 142 The embers from these smaller fires could be carried miles by hot, dry winds. The deposition zone for these embers could be in wooded areas or an interface zones. Fires that start in flat areas move slower, but wind still pushes them. It is not unusual for a wildfire pushed by wind to burn the ground fuel and later climb into the crown and reverse its track. This is one of many ways that fires can escape containment, typically during periods when response capabilities are overwhelmed. These new small fires would most likely merge. Suppression resources would be redirected from protecting the natural resources to saving more remote subdivisions. The worst-case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season. To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides and releasing tons of sediment into rivers, permanently changing floodplains and damaging sensitive habitat and riparian areas. Such a fire followed by rain could release millions of cubic yards of sediment into streams for years, creating new floodplains and changing existing ones. With the forests removed from the watershed, stream flows could easily double. Floods that could be expected every 50 years may occur every couple of years. With the streambeds unable to carry the increased discharge because of increased sediment, the floodplains and floodplain elevations would increase. 17.9 Issues The major issues for wildfire are the following: • Public education and outreach to people living in or near the fire hazard zones should include information about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space, and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones. • Wildfires could cause flooding, debris flows, or landslides as secondary natural hazards. • Climate change could affect the wildfire hazard. • Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed. • Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events. • Vegetation management activities. This would include enhancement through expansion of the target areas as well as additional resources. • Regional consistency of higher building code standards such as residential sprinkler requirements and prohibitive combustible roof standards. • Expand certifications and qualifications for fire department personnel. Ensure that all firefighters are trained in basic wildfire behavior, basic fire weather, and that all company officers and chief level officers are trained in the wildland command and strike team leader level. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 143 Map 17-1. Grant County Fire Regime Groups. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 144 CHAPTER 18 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 18.1 General Background Hazardous materials, also referred to as dangerous goods, hazardous substances, and toxic chemicals, are substances that pose a potential risk to life, health and safety, or property when released. If improperly managed, pollution and contaminated sites can greatly impact the environment and human health. Mitigating the risks posed by hazardous materials includes considering how these substances are treated during their transport, use, storage, and disposal. The US Department of Transportation identifies nine classes of hazardous materials, as follows: 1. Explosives: The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates HAZMAT transportation and divides explosives into 6 categories, with 1 being the most sensitive material and 6 representing the least sensitive. 2. Gases: Gases can be compressed, liquefied, or dissolved under pressure. In general, gases are divided into 5 subcategories of flammable gas, nonflammable gas, poisonous gas, oxygen, and inhalation hazard. 3. Flammable Liquids and Combustible Liquids: Liquids that have a ‘flash point,’ or ignition temperature, of 140 degrees F or less are classified as flammable liquids. Examples include gasoline, acetone, and many common paints and solvents. 4. Flammable Solids: Readily combustible and dangerous when wet. 5. Oxidizers and Organic Peroxide: Oxidizing agents may cause or contribute to the combustion of other materials by yielding oxygen. Organic peroxides contain the bivalent -O-O- structure. 6. Toxic and Infectious Substances: Toxic substances which are liable to cause death, or serious injury to human health, and biohazardous substances classified by the World Health Organization as either infectious or sample specimens. 7. Radioactive: Emits ionizing radiation. 8. Corrosive: Can dissolve organic tissue or severely corrode metals. 9. Miscellaneous: Materials like asbestos, dry ice, etc. Hazardous materials can be found in every community. Hazardous materials are used and stored in homes, businesses, and shipped daily along transportation routes that pass by residential areas, critical facilities, and natural areas. Releases of hazardous materials have the potential to contaminate groundwater, surface water, and soil. While small releases are generally contained and cleaned up quickly, even a small release can incur thousands of dollars in cleanup costs and damages. Larger spills can cause millions of dollars in damages. While many materials exist that pose long-term hazards, like asbestos exposure, this chapter is focused on incidents that pose a large and more immediate threat to individuals or communities who could be potentially exposed. 18.1.1 Probability of Future Occurrence Grant County is at high risk of a future hazardous materials incident. Presently, there are 173 fixed facilities within the County participating in Tier II reporting. A facility must participate in Tier II reporting if it meets one of the following criteria: NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 145 • The facility houses 10,000 lbs or more of any hazardous chemical by OSHA criteria • At any given time during the reporting year, the facility stored any material on the EPA Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) list to the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) or 500 lbs, whichever is lower • The facility has reached the threshold for gasoline storage at 75,000 gallons and/or 100,000 gallons for diesel fuel. In addition, the amount of industrial transportation along busy roads and rail corridors and the presence of two major pipelines that terminates in Moses Lake greatly contribute to the risk of a hazardous materials incident. These incidents may occur due to materials being released by accident, malicious act, fires, or weather-related events. 18.2 Hazard Profile 18.2.1 Past Events Grant County has experienced a wide variety of hazardous material incidents including explosions, gas leaks, oil spills, and exposure to toxic substances. Most recently on October 23, 2022, a Wilbur-Ellis fertilizer plant near Moses Lake caught on fire, releasing toxic smoke into the air. Residents downwind of the smoke were advised to shelter in place. Emergency crews let the fire smolder to prevent contaminated water runoff from the remains of the building. There is a rich history of oil spills in Grant County. Between July 2015 and December 2022, 18 spills of one gallon or more of oils have been reported within Grant County (WA Dept. of Ecology, 2022). In 2022, there were two spills in the Quincy area. In 2020, there was a 100-gallon mineral oil spill that occurred between two railroad tracks near Ephrata due to equipment failure. Ecology reviewed a follow- up soil sample and issued a no further action letter on April 28th, 2020. In addition, in 1979 a semi- tractor tipped over near Crab Creek, west of Othello, spilling considerable oil from the truck’s fuel tanks into the creek. There is a significant hazardous site located near Moses Lake, the Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination superfund site (Figure 18-1). This site is made up of an old Air Force airport, a county airport, and adjacent lands. Past operations at the Airforce Base and industrial activities associated with the aircraft industry contaminated the soil and groundwater with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other hazardous chemicals including arsenic, lead, mercury, gasoline, diesel, oil, polychlorinated biphenyls, and asbestos. The site was initially identified as a problem when nearby wells tested for contaminated drinking water. The EPA issued an interim cleanup plan in 2008 and are currently working alongside Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the City of Moses Lake to clean the superfund site. The EPA provides a five-year review to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy. According to the second five-year review report by the EPA conducted in 2022, the remediation and monitoring is continuing, which includes soil clean up, well sampling, and groundwater treatment (EPA, 2022). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 146 18.2.2 Location Many hazardous materials incidents occur at fixed locations like factories or storage facilities. Transportation incidents may be more difficult to manage because there is no way to tell exactly where the incident may occur, and it will likely be an uncontained setting. Figure 18-1. Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination Site. Source: Moses Lake, 2021 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 147 18.2.3 Frequency Spills occur at a frequency of roughly twice per year within Grant County, based on data from the Washington Department of Ecology. Most incidents are small and result in little environmental, personal, or property damage. As federal, state, and local rules and regulations continue to become more stringent, such as the requirement to build containment areas around new storage sites, there is a lower chance for an incident. 18.2.4 Severity The severity of a hazardous materials incident relies on multiple factors, including the size of the spill, the type of hazardous material spilled, and the type of health risks posed to humans. Severity is much easier to measure for acute exposures, as chronic or repeated long-term exposure to hazardous materials can be difficult to track over time. Acute health risks posed by hazardous materials include thermal, radiological, asphyxiation, chemical, biological, or mechanical risks, detailed below: • Thermal harm is the result of exposure to extreme temperatures, both high and low. • Radiological harm comes from ionizing radiation. Sources of ionizing radiation include medical isotopes, X-rays, and survey equipment. • Asphyxiation can happen when exposed to materials that reduce oxygen availability to the point where one may suffocate, typically in confined spaces. • Chemical harm results from exposure to chemicals. Injuries and illness varies by material. • Biological harm comes from the exposure to biological materials, including bacteria, viruses, and biological toxins. • Mechanical harm refers to exposure to or contact with fragmentation or debris, explosions, or blast injuries. In addition, the severity of an incident is directly related to the plans, procedures, and quick decision- making by emergency officials. The ability to communicate evacuation, shelter-in place, and public health concerns to the general public can greatly reduce the severity of an incident. While most incidents are generally brief, the resulting recovery and cleanup may take time and money. 18.2.5 Warning Time Response to a hazardous materials incident is defensive in nature, and therefore there is little to no warning time for when an incident may occur. People in the immediate vicinity will have the least amount of warning and response time. The surrounding community may have more time to shelter-in- place or evacuate. 18.3 Secondary Hazards Most of the time, hazardous materials incidents are the secondary hazard to other primary events, such as an earthquake. However, there are some secondary hazards associated with hazardous materials incidents, including include disease outbreaks and fires. Disease outbreak can occur if the material in question is Class 6.2, biohazardous substances. Class 6.2 is further divided into two categories, where Category A represents infectious biohazards, and Category B covers samples like virus cultures, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 148 specimens, and used needles. The release of Class 6.2 materials is very unlikely. Many hazards can trigger hazardous materials incidents through the mechanisms with which the primary hazard causes damage. Earthquakes, landslides, volcanic activity, flooding, wildfire, transportation incidents, and deliberate attacks are all capable of producing a hazardous materials incident. Table 18-1. Primary Hazards Relationship to Hazardous Materials Incidents. Hazard HAZMAT Mechanism Earthquake • Sloshing and spills • Buried piping becomes fractured by soil movement and aboveground piping has hangers break and joints fail • Sliding and overturning of industrial equipment • Failure of pressurized vessels and unpressurized enclosed tanks • Derailment of trains, road accidents due to bridge or road damage • Old buildings may release asbestos fibers if damaged or collapsed during an earthquake Landslide • Buried piping becomes fractured by soil movement • Buried structures like septic tanks fail and spill contents • Any chemicals pulled into the landslide Volcanic Activity • Ash particulate contains silica and can cause chronic lung disease resulting in scarring damage and impairment, based on inhaled particulate size Flooding • Industrial or household chemicals mixed into flood waters Wildfire • Wildfire smoke is a combination of gas, hazardous air pollutants, and fine particulates that can be made up of different components including acids, soots, metals, inorganic compounds, and more. • Burnt leftovers can include household hazardous waste, heavy metals, asbestos, paints, bleach, fertilizers, disinfectants, and more. Severe Weather • Structural damage to storage containers or buildings • Vehicle accidents involving hazardous materials transport • Weather incidents may delay response 18.4 Climate Change Impacts While hazardous materials incidents are not directly correlated with climate change, these incidents serve as a secondary hazard to other incidents that are directly impacted by climate change, such as wildfires and floods. Climate change and its impact on hazardous material sites is a growing concern, especially regarding waste sites. Hazardous waste sites near rivers are at highest risk because extreme storms and higher water levels could release pollution into the environment. Many of these sites were built in locations believed to be in areas of low risk, however, due to development, floodplain boundary change, and an increase in extreme events from climate change the possibility that water may reach hazardous material and waste sites is increased. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 149 18.5 Exposure Tier II Fixed Facilities The 173 Tier II fixed facilities within Grant County expose significant area and population to hazardous materials. Each of these facilities poses a risk to the surrounding area. Table 18-2 identifies the jurisdiction (including city limits and Urban Growth Areas) of the facilities within the County. See Figure 18-2 for a map of these facilities along with major transportation corridors and railroads. Six Tier II facilities are susceptible to flooding, positioned within the 100-year floodplain. Two of these are dams, the other facility uses include agriculture, gas stations, and electrical companies. Sixty-nine facilities are within areas classified as NEHRP soil type D and have a low to moderate liquefaction risk. Six Tier II facilities are classified being within areas with soil type D-E and carry a moderate to high liquefaction risk. These facilities have the greatest exposure to damage from earthquakes. All facilities are at risk of damage during a wildfire or severe weather. Table 18-2. Tier II Facility Jurisdictions. City/UGA Number of Tier II Facilities Coulee City 6 Electric City 1 Ephrata 11 George 4 Grand Coulee 2 Hartline 1 Marlin (Krupp) 0 Mattawa 2 Moses Lake 48 Quincy 33 Royal City 9 Soap Lake 0 Warden 8 Wilson Creek 0 Unincorporated County 48 Total 173 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 150 Transient Facilities Several major state routes pass through Grant County, including State Routes 2, 17, 24, 26, 28, 155, 170, 174, 243, 262, 281, 282, 283, as well as Interstate 90. Interstate 90 is the major east-west transit route through the state, with average daily traffic of almost 20,000 trips per day and growing. Truck traffic accounts for about 15-25% of those trips, depending on which area you are within the County (WSDOT, 2023). On county and city roads, numerous trucks transit multiple loads such as gasoline, diesel, Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), agricultural products, and unmarked freight. See Figure 18-2 for the major vehicle transportation routes through the County. Rail lines include the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, Port of Royal Slope rail line, Columbia Basin Railroad rail lines, and the Palouse River and Coulee City (PCC) Rail System, owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The BNSF railroad travels through Ephrata and Quincy along SR 28. The Columbia Basin Railroad travels through Warden and Moses Lake with separate lines that access the Port of Moses Lake Industrial Area and the Wheeler Industrial Area; however, the route through the Moses Lake city center to the Port of Moses Lake is rarely used. A reroute for the Columbia Basin Railroad is in the implementation stages that will abandon the route through the City of Moses Lake and connect the Wheeler Industrial Area to the Port of Moses Lake Industrial Area. This reroute will improve connectivity and is expected to increase rail traffic through the area. The PCC Railroad travels through Hartline and ends in Coulee City. The Port of Royal Slope Railroad operates between Royal City and Othello, where it connects with the Columbia Basin Railroad. See Figure 18-2 for the rail lines through the County. Pipelines Two major pipelines terminate in Grant County and three additional pipelines provide local transport, in addition to network of smaller distribution lines that provide individual natural gas service. The Yellowstone Pipeline, owned by Phillips 66, transports refined petroleum products, such as jet fuel, to Moses Lake (Figure 18-3). The Northwest Pipeline, owned by Williams, transports natural gas (Figure 18- 4). A pipeline owned by Lamb Weston connects into the Northwest Pipeline and provides natural gas to their facility in Warden. In the Wheeler Industrial Area, two pipelines transport gasses to the JR Simplot boiler. One originates at a JR Simplot facility and transports biogas, a form of methane produced from organic materials, and the other originates at the Nourygen chemical plant, and transports methane. Radiological Incidents Radiological incidents may occur at Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station in Benton County. The southern portion of grant county is within the 50-mile emergency zone. A potential incident is addressed in the Grant County Chemical and Radiological Protection Plan. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 151 Figure 18-2. Tier II Facilities, Major Roads, and Railroads within Grant County. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 152 Figure 18-3. Major Oil Transportation in Washington State. Source: Ecology, 2022 Figure 18-4. Major Natural Gas Pipelines. Source: EIA, 2022 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 153 18.6 Vulnerability Structures, above-ground infrastructure, critical facilities, individuals, and natural environments can all be vulnerable to a hazardous materials incident, depending on the nature of the incident itself. Any incident involving explosives or flammable materials could destroy or negatively impact the built environment. Other materials, like corrosive, radioactive, and toxic substances could cause direct harm to any individual who encounters them or could directly and negatively impact the natural environment if spilled. Some materials may not seem immediately harmful but cause damage if inhaled. Currently, support for a large-scale hazardous materials incident has to come from out of the county. The closest hazardous material teams are located in Spokane and Tri-Cities. Because of the distance and time it takes the teams to get to the site, the incident severity may increase. Until the team arrives, local responders are only able to isolate and deny entry to the area. Grant County, Chelan County, and Douglas County have partnered to create the North Central Hazardous Materials Team that can more quickly respond to stop or end an event. At the time of this plan adoption, the team is actively training to quality as technicians who can respond to a large-scale incident. The team is expected to deploy in 2023. 18.6.1 Population The entire population of Grant County is exposed to a hazardous material incident, due to widespread use and storage throughout communities. Communities along major transportation routes or nearby a fixed facility experience a higher risk for an incident. The general population may be exposed to hazardous material through inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. 18.6.2 Property Some hazardous materials pose a reactivity, fire, or explosion risk. Materials improperly stored in buildings have the potential to mix with incompatible substances which can result in polymerization, the production of heat, combustion, or fire, and even an explosion. It is difficult to determine potential losses and vulnerabilities to properties due to the variable nature and amount of hazardous materials being stored. Hazardous material incidents can pose a serious long-term threat to a property. 18.6.3 Critical Facilities Figure 18-5 is based on a geospatial vulnerable facility analysis, where 45 critical facilities have been found to be within 1000 ft. of a Tier II hazardous materials storage facility within Grant County. These facilities include the following: • Child care centers, preschools, elementary schools, and secondary schools: 14 total facilities. • Adult family homes, assisted living, and nursing homes: 3 total facilities. • Clinics, Emergency Medical Services, and hospitals: 13 total facilities. • Law Enforcement and Fire Stations: 15 total facilities. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 154 18.6.4 Environment Hazardous materials and waste threaten the overall health and welfare of public spaces and the environment. Hazardous materials can directly impact air quality, soil health, water quality, and the wellbeing of local flora and fauna. Exposure can either be acute or chronic depending on the length of time the hazardous material is released into the environment. Short-term effects of hazardous pollutants include water and air quality degradation. Long term effects may cause major reproductive complications, cancers, or otherwise limit the ability of an ecosystem to survive. 18.6.5 Economic Impact The economic impacts of hazardous materials incidents are incurred by potential damages caused by the incident, and the cost of taking action to respond to and cleaning up said incident. According to RCW 4.24.314, the responsibility for incident clean-up costs falls upon any person responsible for causing a hazardous materials incident, where action must be taken to protect the public from actual or threatened harm. 18.7 Future Trends in Development The number and types of hazardous chemicals stored in and transported through the county will likely continue to increase. As population grows, the number of people vulnerable to the impacts of hazardous materials incidents will increase. Population and business growth along major transportation corridors increases the vulnerability to transportation hazardous material spills. 18.8 Scenario Developing a scenario for a hazardous material incident is difficult, due to the wide variety of incidents that may occur. Depending on the type of hazardous material, amount, and location the situation may 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Unnamed Coulee City Ephrata George Grand Coulee Mattawa Moses Lake Quincy Royal City Warden Figure 18-5. Number of Critical Facilities within 1000 ft of a Tier II Hazardous Materials Storage Facility, by City. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 155 vary widely. The following scenario is documented within the Grant County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Emergency Support Function (ESF) 10 (Grant County, 2018). An emergency or disaster situation involving Grant County or the incorporated communities could require the evacuation of a large number of people in or near a threatened or stricken area. Evacuation and movement involve the coordination of multiple agencies and good communications with the public. Evacuation and movement are the responsibility of local/county law enforcement and the executive head of a jurisdiction. This applies to those agencies and others necessary for an evacuation. Coordination of a major evacuation is extremely difficult due to local conditions of weather, roadways, road construction, and time of day. Isolation of the area to be evacuated and the difficulty of providing sufficient warning and means of transportation for those in rural areas are other factors. This is especially true for those individuals who are at risk medically, the elderly, “latch key children,” and the special needs population. An evacuation can be ordered by government, people are not forced by government to leave their homes. Government has the responsibility to warn and instruct the public how to evacuate. The predominant language present in Grant County is English, followed by Spanish. There are also portions of the County that primarily speak Russian and Ukrainian. During disaster events Limited English Proficiency residents will be messaged according to the Limited English Proficiency Emergency Communications Plan, which can be found in ESF 15. Due to the high level of Spanish speaking residents within the County, the County will deliver messaging in Spanish to keep them informed. Some of the local hospitals within Grant County, such as Columbia Basin Hospital in Ephrata, Quincy Valley Hospital in Quincy, and Samaritan Hospital in Moses Lake, have Decontamination trailers. The number of patients that each hospital can accommodate fluctuates on a day to day basis based on need and availability. 18.9 Issues The major issues for hazardous materials incidents include the following: • Grant County does not have a local hazardous materials response team, which delays response to incidents. The County and neighboring jurisdictions should continue to develop a hazardous response team. • Continue all facets of emergency preparedness training for police, fire, public works, and public information staff in order to respond quickly. • Work proactively with hazardous materials facilities to follow best management practices: o Placards and labeling of containers o Emergency plans and coordination o Standardized response procedures o Notification of the types of materials being transported through the planning area o Random inspections of transporters o Installation of mitigating techniques along critical locations o Routine hazard communication initiatives NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 156 o Consideration of using safer alternative products • Work with the private sector to enhance and create Business Continuity Plans and Emergency Response Plans in the event of an emergency. • Coordinate with planning area school districts to ensure that their emergency preparedness plan includes preparation for hazardous material spills. • Maintain a regional emergency services information line that the public can contact 24 hours a day during an emergency incident. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 157 CHAPTER 19 PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING A risk ranking was performed for the hazards of concern described in this plan. This risk ranking assesses the probability of each hazard’s occurrence as well as its likely impact on the people, property, and economy of the planning area. The risk ranking was conducted via facilitated brainstorming sessions and in consideration of data generated by HAZUS-MH using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The results are used in establishing mitigation priorities. 19.1 Probability of Occurrence The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence: • 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) • No exposure—There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The assessment of hazard frequency is generally based on past hazard events in the area. Table 19-1 summarizes the probability assessment for each hazard of concern for this plan. 19.2 Impact Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows: • People—Values were 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. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows: o High—50% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) o Medium—25% to 49% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) o Low—25% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) o No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event: o High—30% or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) o Medium—15% to 29% of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) o Low—14% or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) o No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 158 • Economy—Values were 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 the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildfire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability was considered to be the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake and flood hazards using HAZUS-MH. o High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 20% or more of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3) o Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10% to 19% of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2) o Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 9% or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1) o No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the operations was given a weighting factor of 1. 19.3 Risk Rating and Ranking The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations, as summarized in Table 19-1 and 19-2. The hazards ranked as being of highest concern are severe storm, drought, and wildfire. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are volcano, flood and earthquake. The hazards ranked as being of lowest concern are dam failure and landslide. Table 19-2 shows the hazard risk ranking. Table 19-1. Grant County Risk Ranking. Natural Hazard Event Probability Factor Impact: People (weight x3) Impact: Property (weight x2) Impact: Economy (weight x1) Risk Rating (max score = 54) Dam Failure Med 2 3 2 1 12 Drought High 3 3 6 3 36 Earthquake Med 2 9 6 2 32 Flood High 3 3 2 1 18 Landslide High 3 3 2 1 18 Severe Weather High 3 6 6 2 42 Volcano Med 2 9 6 1 32 Wildfire Med 2 9 6 2 34 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 159 Table 19-2. Hazard Risk Ranking. Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 Severe Weather 42 2 Drought 36 3 Wildfire 33 4 Volcano 32 5 Flood 18 6 Earthquake 14 7 Dam Failure 12 8 Landslide 6 - Hazardous Materials - NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 160 CHAPTER 20 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use in the planning area, in compliance with 44CFR (Section 201.6.c.3.ii). One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. The catalogs for each hazard are listed in Table 20-1 through 20-8. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized in two ways: • By what the alternative would do: o Manipulate a hazard o Reduce exposure to a hazard o Reduce vulnerability to a hazard o Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for a hazard • By who would have responsibility for implementation: o Individuals o Businesses o Government Hazard mitigation initiatives recommended in this plan were selected from among the alternatives presented in the catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the planning partners’ goals and objectives, and are within the capabilities of the partners to implement. However, not all the alternatives meet all the planning partners’ selection criteria. Table 20-1. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Dam Failure. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None Remove dams Remove levees Harden dams Remove dams Remove levees Harden dams Reduce Exposure Relocate out of dam failure inundation areas. Replace earthen dams with hardened structures Replace earthen dams with hardened structures Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas. Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation areas. Reduce Vulnerability Elevate home to appropriate levels. Flood-proof facilities within dam failure inundation areas Adopt higher regulatory floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation areas. Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 161 Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Increase Preparation or Response Capability Educate employees on the probable impacts of a dam failure. Develop a Continuity of Operations Plan. Map dam failure inundation areas. Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure component. Institute monthly communications checks with dam operators. Inform the public on risk reduction techniques. Adopt real estate disclosure requirements for the resale of property located within dam failure inundation areas. Consider the probable impacts of climate in assessing the risk associated with the dam failure hazard. Establish early warning capability downstream of listed high hazard dams. Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams in future land use decisions. Table 20-2. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Drought. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None Groundwater recharge through stormwater management. Reduce Exposure None None Identify and create groundwater backup sources. Reduce Vulnerability Drought-resistant landscapes Reduce water system losses Modify plumbing systems (through water saving kits) Drought- resistant landscapes Reduce private water system losses Water use conflict regulations. Reduce water system losses. Distribute water saving kits. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Practice active water conservation Practice active water conservation Public education on drought resistance. Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual aid agreements with alternative suppliers. Develop drought contingency plan. Develop criteria “triggers” for drought-related actions. Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts. Modify rate structure to influence active water conservation techniques. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 162 Table 20-3. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Earthquake. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None None Reduce Exposure Locate outside of hazard area (off soft soils) Locate or relocate mission- critical functions outside hazard area where possible Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard area where possible. Reduce Vulnerability Retrofit structure (anchor house structure to foundation) Secure household items that can cause injury or damage (such as water heaters, bookcases, and other appliances) Build to higher design Build redundancy for critical functions and facilities Retrofit critical buildings and areas housing mission-critical functions Harden infrastructure. Provide redundancy for critical functions. Adopt higher regulatory standards. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Practice “drop, cover, and hold” Develop household mitigation plan, such as creating a retrofit savings account, communication capability with outside, 72-hour self- sufficiency during an event Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Become informed on the hazard and risk reduction alternatives available. Develop a post- disaster action plan for your household Adopt higher standard for new construction; consider “performance- based design” when building new structures Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Inform your employees on the possible impacts of earthquake and how to deal with them at your work facility. Develop a Continuity of Operations Plan Provide better hazard maps. Provide technical information and guidance. Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (e.g., tax incentives, information). Include retrofitting and replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan. Develop strategy to take advantage of post- disaster opportunities. Warehouse critical infrastructure components such as pipe, power line, and road repair materials Develop and adopt a Continuity of Operations Plan. Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as <50% substantial damage or improvements). Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities. Develop a post-disaster action plan that includes grant funding and debris removal components. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 163 Table 20-4. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Flood. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard Clear stormwater drains and culverts Institute low-impact development techniques on property Clear stormwater drains and culverts Institute low- impact development techniques on property Maintain drainage system. Institute low-impact development techniques on property. Dredging, levee construction, and providing regional retention areas. Structural flood control, levees, channelization, or revetments. Stormwater management regulations and master planning. Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to control increases in runoff. Reduce Exposure Locate outside of hazard area Elevate utilities above base flood elevation Institute low impact development techniques on property Locate business critical facilities or functions outside hazard area Institute low impact development techniques on property Locate or relocate critical facilities outside of hazard area. Acquire or relocate identified repetitive loss properties. Promote open space uses in identified high hazard areas via techniques such as: planned unit developments, easements, setbacks, greenways, sensitive area tracks. Adopt land development criteria such as planned unit developments, density transfers, clustering. Institute low impact development techniques on property. Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to control increases in runoff. Reduce Vulnerability Retrofit structures (elevate structures above base flood elevation) Elevate items within house above base flood elevation Build new homes above base flood elevation Flood-proof existing structures Build redundancy for critical functions or retrofit critical buildings Provide flood- proofing measures when new critical infrastructure must be located in floodplains Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement program. Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure. Adopt appropriate regulatory standards, such as: increased freeboard standards, cumulative substantial improvement or damage, lower substantial damage threshold; compensatory storage, non-conversion deed restrictions. Stormwater management regulations and master planning. Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain management policies that strive to not increase the flood risk on downstream communities. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Buy flood insurance Develop household mitigation plan, such as retrofit savings, communication capability with outside, 72-hour self-sufficiency during and after an event Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Support and implement hazard disclosure for the sale/resale of property in identified risk zones. Solicit cost-sharing through partnerships with other stakeholders on projects with multiple benefits. Produce better hazard maps. Provide technical information and guidance. Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (stronger controls, tax incentives, and information). Incorporate retrofitting or replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan. Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster opportunities. Warehouse critical infrastructure components. Develop and adopt a Continuity of Operations Plan. Consider participation in the Community Rating System. Maintain existing data and gather new data needed to define risks and vulnerability. Train emergency responders. Create a building and elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 164 Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Develop and implement a public information strategy. Charge a hazard mitigation fee. Integrate floodplain management policies into other planning mechanisms within the planning area. Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the flood hazard. Consider the residual risk associated with structural flood control in future land use decisions. Enforce National Flood Insurance Program. Adopt a Stormwater Management Master Plan. Table 20-5. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Landslide. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) Reduce weight on top of slope Minimize vegetation removal and the addition of impervious surfaces. Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) Reduce weight on top of slope Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe). Reduce weight on top of slope. Reduce Exposure Locate structures outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide-run out area) Locate structures outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide-run out area) Acquire properties in high-risk landslide areas. Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of habitable structures in high-risk landslide areas. Reduce Vulnerability Retrofit home. Retrofit at-risk facilities. Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development within unstable slope areas. Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of landslides. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Institute warning system, and develop evacuation plan Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Educate yourself on risk reduction techniques for landslide hazards. Institute warning system, and develop evacuation plan Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Develop a Continuity of Operations Plan Educate employees on the potential exposure to landslide hazards and emergency response protocol. Produce better hazard maps. Provide technical information and guidance. Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas: better land controls, tax incentives, information. Develop strategy to take advantage of post- disaster opportunities. Warehouse critical infrastructure components. Develop and adopt a Continuity of Operations Plan. Educate the public on the landslide hazard and appropriate risk reduction alternatives. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 165 Table 20-6. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Severe Weather. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None None Reduce Exposure None None None Reduce Vulnerability Insulate house Provide redundant heat and power Insulate structure Plant appropriate trees near home and power lines (“Right tree, right place” National Arbor Day Foundation Program) Relocate critical infrastructure (such as power lines) underground Reinforce or relocate critical infrastructure such as power lines to meet performance expectations Install tree wire Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground. Trim trees back from power lines. Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections and bridges. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Trim or remove trees that could affect power lines Promote 72-hour self- sufficiency Obtain a NOAA weather radio. Obtain an emergency generator. Trim or remove trees that could affect power lines Create redundancy Equip facilities with a NOAA weather radio Equip vital facilities with emergency power sources. Support programs such as “Tree Watch” that proactively manage problem areas through use of selective removal of hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc. Establish and enforce building codes that require all roofs to withstand snow loads. Increase communication alternatives. Modify land use and environmental regulations to support vegetation management activities that improve reliability in utility corridors. Modify landscape and other ordinances to encourage appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone lines. Provide NOAA weather radios to the public. Table 20-7. Catalog of Risk Reduction Measures – Volcano. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None Limited success has been experienced with lava flow diversion structures. Reduce Exposure Relocate outside of hazard area, such as lahar zones Locate mission critical functions outside of hazard area, such as lahar zones whenever possible. Locate critical facilities and functions outside of hazard area, such as lahar zones, whenever possible. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 166 Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Reduce Vulnerability None Protect corporate critical facilities and infrastructure from potential impacts of severe ash fall (air filtration capability) Protect critical facilities from potential problems associated with ash fall. Build redundancy for critical facilities and functions. Increase Preparation or Response Capability Develop and practice a household evacuation plan. Develop and practice a corporate evacuation plan Inform employees through corporate sponsored outreach Develop a cooperative Public outreach, awareness. Tap into state volcano warning system to provide early warning to Grant County residents of potential ash fall problems. Table 20-8. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives – Wildfire. Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard Clear potential fuels on property such as dry overgrown underbrush and diseased trees Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and diseased trees Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and diseased trees. Implement best management practices on public lands. Reduce Exposure Create and maintain defensible space around structures Locate outside of hazard area Mow regularly Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure Locate outside of hazard area Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure. Locate outside of hazard area. Enhance building code to include use of fire- resistant materials in high hazard area. Reduce Vulnerability Create and maintain defensible space around structures and provide water on site Use fire-retardant building materials Create defensible spaces around home Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure and provide water on site Use fire-retardant building materials Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire threat. Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure. Use fire-retardant building materials. Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire threat. Consider higher regulatory standards (such as Class A roofing). Establish biomass reclamation initiatives. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 167 Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Increase Preparation or Response Capability Employ techniques from the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise Communities program to safeguard home Identify alternative water supplies for fire fighting Install/replace roofing material with non- combustible roofing materials. Support Firewise community initiatives. Create /establish stored water supplies to be utilized for firefighting. More public outreach and education efforts, including an active Firewise program. Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to enhance fire capability in high-risk areas. Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes. Seek alternative water supplies. Become a Firewise community. Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk. Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire service agencies. Create/implement fire plans. Consider probable impacts of climate change on risk associated with wildfire hazards in future land use decisions. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 168 CHAPTER 21 AREA-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 21.1 Selected County-Wide Mitigation Initiatives The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected area-wide actions to be included in a hazard mitigation action plan. The selection of area-wide actions was based on the risk assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Table 21-1 lists the recommended hazard mitigation actions that make up the action plan. The timeframe indicated in the table is defined as follows: • Short Term = Existing program that will continue or new program that will start within one year • Medium Term= Completion within 5 years • Long Term = Completion within 10 years • Ongoing = Phased project that will have an extended timeframe 21.2 Benefit/Cost Review 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed projects and their associated costs (Section 201.6.c.3iii). The benefits of proposed projects were weighed against estimated costs as part of the project prioritization process. The benefit/cost analysis was not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A less formal approach was used because some projects may not be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time. Therefore, 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 the costs and benefits of these projects. Cost ratings were defined as follows: • High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). • Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. • Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: • High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. • Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 169 medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. Table 21-1. Action Plan. Hazards Addressed Funding Options Timeframe Objectives Met In Previous Plan? CW-1—Based on identified risks, relocate or structurally harden critical facilities as needed. Responsible Agency: All planning partners All Ongoing programs, BRIC, HMGP grant funding Short-term, Ongoing 1, 8 No CW-2—To the extent possible based on available resources, provide coordination and technical assistance in the application for grant funding that includes assistance in cost vs. benefit analysis for grant eligible projects Responsible Agency: Grant County Sheriff’s Office EM All Existing County programs; grant funding Short-term, Ongoing 2, 7 No CW-3—Encourage the development and implementation of a county-wide hazard mitigation public-information strategy that meets the needs of all planning partners. Leverage public outreach partnering capabilities to inform and educate the public about hazard mitigation and preparedness. Seek opportunities to promote the mitigation of natural hazards within the planning area, utilizing information contained within this plan, to reach the whole community. Responsible Agency: Grant County Sheriff’s Office EM with participation of all planning partners All Cost sharing from the Partnership, General Fund Allocations, Cost sharing with Stakeholders, Grant funding Short-term 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 No CW-4—Coordinate updates to land use and building regulations that reduce the impacts of natural hazards and seek a regulatory cohesiveness within the planning area. This can be accomplished via a commitment from all planning partners to involve each other in their adoption processes by seeking input and comment during the course of regulatory updates or comprehensive planning. Responsible Agency: Governing body of each eligible planning partner. All General funds Short-term, Ongoing 1, 3, 4, 9 No NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 170 Hazards Addressed Funding Options Timeframe Objectives Met In Previous Plan? CW-5—Sponsor and maintain a natural hazards informational website to include information such as: • Hazard-specific information such as GIS layers, private property mitigation alternatives, important facts on risk and vulnerability • Pre- and post-disaster information such as notices of grant funding availability • CRS creditable information • Links to Planning Partners’ pages, FEMA, Red Cross, NOAA, USGS and the National Weather Service. • Information such as progress reports, mitigation success stories, update strategies, Steering Committee meetings. Responsible Agency: Grant County Sheriff’s Office EMwith participation of all planning partners All County general fund through existing programs, grant funding Short-term, Ongoing 1, 6, 11 No CW-6—The Steering Committee will remain as a functioning body over time to monitor progress of the plan, provide technical assistance to planning partners and oversee the update of the plan according to schedule. This body will continue to operate under the ground rules established at its inception. Steering Committee members will designate a replacement member when necessary. Responsible Agency: Grant County Sheriff’s Office EM All General funds Short-term 5, 9 No CW-7—Amend or enhance this hazard mitigation plan as needed to comply with state or federal mandates as compliance guidelines become available. Responsible Agency: County with participation of all planning partners All Ongoing programs, grant funding depending on the mandate Medium-term, Ongoing 5, 9 No CW-8—Support the collection of improved data (hydrologic, geologic, topographic, volcanic, historical, etc.) to better assess risks and vulnerabilities. Responsible Agency: All planning partners All Ongoing programs, BRIC, HMGP grant funding Medium-term, Ongoing 1, 7 No CW-9—All planning partners that fully participated in this planning effort will formally adopt this plan once pre- adoption approval has been granted by Washington State Emergency Management Division and FEMA and will adhere to the plan maintenance protocol identified in this plan. Responsible Agency: All planning partners All Ongoing programs, grant funding Short-term 5, 9 No NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 171 Hazards Addressed Funding Options Timeframe Objectives Met In Previous Plan? CW-10-Utilize information within this plan to support updates to emergency management plans, comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, in effect within the planning area. Responsible Agency: All planning partners All Ongoing programs, grant funding Short-term, Ongoing 1, 3, 4 No For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, the partners may seek financial assistance under the HMGP or PDM programs, both of which require detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, the partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet the goals and objectives of this plan. 21.3 Action Plan Prioritization Table 21-2 lists the priority of each area-wide action. A qualitative benefit-cost review was performed for each of these actions. The priorities are defined as follows: • Implementation Priority ➢ High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). ➢ Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is secured. ➢ Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no secured source of funding, and is not eligible for any known grant funding. Action can be completed in the long term (1 to 10 years). Low-priority actions are generally “wish-list” actions. They may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified. • Grant Pursuit Priority ➢ High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding. ➢ Medium Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has medium or low benefits, and is listed as medium or low implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable. ➢ Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 172 Table 21-2. Prioritization of Area-Wide Mitigation Actions. Action # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Action Grant Eligible? Can Action be Funded under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Implementa tion Priority Grant Pursuit Priority CW-1 2 High High Yes Yes No High High CW-2 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High CW-3 6 High Medium Yes No Yes High N/A CW-4 4 Medium Medium Yes No No High N/A CW-5 3 Medium Medium Yes No No High N/A CW-6 2 High Low Yes No Yes High N/A CW-7 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High High CW-8 2 High High Yes Yes No High High CW-9 2 High Low Yes No Yes High N/A CW-10 2 Medium Medium Yes No No High N/A 21.4 Classification of Mitigation Actions Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Table 21-3 shows these classifications. Table 21-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions. Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type Hazard Prevention Property Protection Public Education and Awareness Natural Resource Protection Emergency Services Structural Projects Climate Resiliency Community Capacity Building Wildfire 1,2,8 2,4 1,3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Flooding 1 2,8 2,4, 1,3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Earthquake 1 2,8 2,4 1,3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Drought 1,2,8 2,4 1,3,5 1 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Severe Storms 1,2,8 2,4 3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Landslide 1,2,8 2,4 3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 8 2,3,5 Volcano 1,2,8 2,4 3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 9 3, 4, 6 Dam Failure 1,2,8 2,4 3,5 1,6,7,9 1,2 9 3, 4, 6 Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows: • Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 173 • 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 residents 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, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure. • 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. • Climate Resiliency—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks. • Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs. 21.5 Action Plan and Implementation The area-wide action plan here and jurisdiction-specific action plans in Volume 2 present a range of action items for reducing loss from hazard events. The planning partners have prioritized actions and can begin to implement the highest-priority actions over the next five years. The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its effective implementation and incorporation of the outlined action items into all partners’ existing plans, policies, and programs. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation but can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. The Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management will assume lead responsibility for facilitating hazard mitigation plan implementation. Plan implementation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the area-wide and jurisdiction-specific action plans. 21.6 Integration Into Other Planning Mechanisms Integrating relevant information from this hazard mitigation plan into other plans and programs where opportunities arise will be the ongoing responsibility of the governing bodies for all planning partners covered by this plan. By adopting comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, the planning partners have planned for the impact of natural hazards, and these documents are integral parts of this hazard NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 174 mitigation plan. The hazard mitigation planning process provided the partners with an opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these documents, based on the best science and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The partners should use their comprehensive plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing risk exposure to citizens of the planning area. An update to a comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. All municipal planning partners have committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual comprehensive plans or similar plans identified in the core capability assessment. Each municipal jurisdiction-specific action plan includes a high-priority mitigation action to create such a linkage. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan may include the following: • Capital improvement programs • Climate action/adaptation plans • Community design guidelines • Critical areas regulations • Debris management plans • Emergency response plans • Municipal codes • Post-disaster action/recovery plans • Stormwater management programs • Water system vulnerability assessments • Water-efficient landscape design guidelines. All planning partners have identified opportunities and strategies for integration in their annexes in Volume 2 of this plan. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 175 CHAPTER 22 REFERENCES Bumbaco, K.A., M.H. Rogers, L.W. O’Neill, D.J. Hoekema, C.L. Raymond (2022). 2021 Pacific Northwest Water Year Impacts Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency (2022). Second Five-Year Review Report for Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination Superfund Site, Grant County, Washington. March 22, 2022. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2001). Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Determining your Risks. FEMA (386-2). August 2001 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002). Getting Started; Building support for Mitigation Planning; FEMA (386-1). September 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003). Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies. FEMA (386-3). April 2003 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004). Using HAZUS-MH for Risk Assessment, How to Guide, FEMA (433). August 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2007). FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating System; CRS Coordinator’s Manual FIA-15/2007 OMB No. 1660-0022 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). National Flood Insurance Program. “Flood Insurance Study for Grant County.” Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Geological Survey, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division (2012-2013). Summary Report: Understanding Earthquake Hazards in Washington State, Modeling a Magnitude 7.4 Earthquake on the Saddle Mountain Fault Zone in South- Central Washington. pp. 1-3 Webpage: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_seismic_scenario_saddle_mountain.pdf Fire Return Interval Map: Data source: http://databasin.org/datasets/1375575d0756499aa7fd6759f89840b4 Grant County Department of Emergency Management, State Fire Mobilization Activation Records (2013). Grant County Department of Emergency Management (2000). Emergency Response Plan and Procedures for Grant County, WA, ESF-10-B, Chemical and Radiological Protection Plan., 1986, Revision 8, 2000. Grant County Department of Emergency Management., 2000, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. Grant County Planning Department, Grant County, Washington (2006). Grant County Comprehensive Plan, Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning. 13 pp.5-6. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 176 Grant County Planning Department, Grant County, Washington (2018). Grant County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Emergency Support Function 10. Accessed at: https://www.grantcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1099/Hazardous-Materials-Response-Plan- ESF-10-PDF International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2008). “Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies and Risk Management Practices: Critical Elements for Adaptation to Climate Change” Lidke, D.J. (2002). Fault number 562a, Saddle Mountains Structures, Saddle Mountains Fault, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: US Geological Survey. Webpage: http://gldims.cr.usgs.gov/webapps/cfusion/Sites/qfault/qf_web_disp.cfm?disp_cd=C&qfault_or=1 327&ims_cf_cd=cf Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, 2021 Update. Accessed at: https://www.cityofml.com/DocumentCenter/Index/655 NASA (2004). NASA Earth Observatory News Web Site Item, dated August 2, 2004. Accessed at: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25145 National Drought Monitor Center (NDMC) (2022). Palmer Drought Index. Accessed at: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ConditionsOutlooks/CurrentConditions.aspx. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Map: Data source: Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2012. NOAA (2010). NOAA, National Climatic Data Center website. Accessed at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms. NOAA (2023). Severe Weather 101 – Winter Weather. Accessed at: https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/winter/types/ OTA, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (1993). Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vol. I. OTA–O–567. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Recent Earthquakes List (2022). Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Accessed at: PNSN Recent Events | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network Spokesman Review (2022). Hailstorm causes significant crop damage in some parts of Eastern Washington. Accessed at: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/aug/13/hail-storm-causes- significant-crop-damage-in-some-/ US Army Corps of Engineers (2020). Causes and Types of Dam Failures. Accessed at: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/rasdocs/ras1dtechref/latest/performing-a-dam-break- study-with-hec-ras/estimating-dam-breach-parameters/causes-and-types-of-dam-failures US Census Bureau (2022). Grant County, Washington Quick Facts. Accessed at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/grantcountywashington. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 177 US Department of Agriculture (2017). Grant County, Washington Profile; 2017 Census of Agriculture. USGS. 2009. http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wgmt/pacnw/lifeline/eqhazards.html US Geological Survey accessed in 2009. US Energy Information Administration (2018). “Natural Gas Weekly Update.” Accessed at: https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archivenew_ngwu/2018/10_25/#itn-tabs-1 US Geological Services (2022). Earthquake Catalog. Accessed at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division (2018). Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. October 1, 2018. Washington State Department of Ecology (2020). Inventory of Dams Report, Revised Edition, September 2020, Publication #94-16. Washington State Department of Ecology (2023). Spill Incidents. Accessed at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Spills/Spill-preparedness-response/Responding-to-spill- incidents/Spill-incidents Washington State Department of Ecology (2022). Oil Movement in Washington State, Revised Edition. Accessed at: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/SummaryPages/1708014.html Washington State Department of Transportation (2023). Traffic Count Data. Accessed at: https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/transportation-data/travel-data/traffic-count-data Washington State Fire Mobilization History of Activations (2008). (http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/docs/mobilization/mobe_history_for_2008.pdf) Washington State Employment Security Department. Annual Averages. Webpage: https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/local- unemployment-statistics Washington State Office of Financial Management Forecasting Division (2012). April 1 2012 Population of Cities, towns and Counties Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues, State of Washington. Webpage: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp Western Regional Climate Center – Desert Research Institute – Reno, Nevada (2013). Climatological Summary, Ephrata Municipal Airport Station, Period of Record: September 2001 to December 2008. Webpage: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/eph.wa.html NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 178 APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet Per Second CIP Capital Improvement Plan CRS Community Rating System DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps DHS Department of Homeland Security DMA Disaster Mitigation Act EAP Emergency Action Plan EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study GIS Geographic Information System HAZUS-MH Hazards, United States-Multi Hazard HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program IBC International Building Code IRC International Residential Code MM Modified Mercalli Scale NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program PDI Palmer Drought Index PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PHDI Palmer Hydrological Drought Index SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHELDUS Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the US SPI Standardized Precipitation Index USGS US Geological Survey NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 179 DEFINITIONS 100-Year Flood: The term “100-year flood” can be misleading. The 100-year flood does not necessarily occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines it as the 1% annual chance flood, which is now the standard definition used by most federal and state agencies and by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Acre-Foot: An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. This measure is used to describe the quantity of storage in a water reservoir. An acre-foot is a unit of volume. One acre-foot equals 7,758 barrels; 325,829 gallons; or 43,560 cubic feet. An average household of four will use approximately 1 acre-foot of water per year. Asset: An asset is any man-made or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to, people; buildings; infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems; lifelines, such as electricity and communication resources; and environmental, cultural, or recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and landmarks. Base Flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the “100-year” or “1% chance” flood. The base flood is a statistical concept used to ensure that all properties subject to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are protected to the same degree against flooding. Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water—whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs, or other sources—flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains, and ridges. Basins are also referred to as “watersheds” and “drainage basins.” Benefit: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are limited to specific, measurable, risk reduction factors, including reduction in expected property losses (buildings, contents, and functions) and protection of human life. Benefit/Cost Analysis: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic, quantitative method of comparing projected benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness. Building: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which the wheels and axles carry no weight. Capability Assessment: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a community’s current capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an inventory of an agency’s mission, programs, and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a community’s actions to reduce losses are identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The following capabilities were reviewed under this assessment: • Legal and regulatory capability • Administrative and technical capability NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 180 • Fiscal capability Community Rating System (CRS): The CRS is a voluntary program under the NFIP that rewards participating communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP and completing activities that reduce flood hazard risk by providing flood insurance premium discounts. Critical Area: An area defined by state or local regulations as deserving special protection because of unique natural features or its value as habitat for a wide range of species of flora and fauna. A sensitive/critical area is usually subject to more restrictive development regulations. Critical Facility: Facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population. These become especially important after any hazard event occurs. For the purposes of this plan, critical facilities include: • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, and/or water reactive materials; • Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a hazard event. • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events, and • Public and private utilities, facilities and infrastructure that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to areas damaged by hazard events. • Government facilities. Cubic Feet per Second (cfs): Discharge or river flow is commonly measured in cfs. One cubic foot is about 7.5 gallons of liquid. Dam: Any artificial barrier or controlling mechanism that can or does impound 10 acre-feet or more of water. Dam Failure: Dam failure refers to a partial or complete breach in a dam (or levee) that impacts its integrity. Dam failures occur for a number of reasons, such as flash flooding, inadequate spillway size, mechanical failure of valves or other equipment, freezing and thawing cycles, earthquakes, and intentional destruction. Debris Avalanche: Volcanoes are prone to debris and mountain rock avalanches that can approach speeds of 100 mph. Debris Flow: Dense mixtures of water-saturated debris that move down-valley; looking and behaving much like flowing concrete. They form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become unstable, and move down slope. The source of water varies but includes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst floods. Debris Slide: Debris slides consist of unconsolidated rock or soil that has moved rapidly down slope. They occur on slopes greater than 65%. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA); The DMA is Public Law 106-390 and is the latest federal legislation enacted to encourage and promote proactive, pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. Under the DMA, a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster hazard mitigation program (HMGP) were established. Drainage Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water- whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs or other sources- flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 181 defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Drainage basins are also referred to as watersheds or basins. Drought: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next. Drought can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group, or environmental function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. A socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well-being, and quality of life or starts to have an adverse impact on a region. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere. Earthquake: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and sudden stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties may result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake, damage, or demolish buildings and other structures. Enhanced Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Tornado wind speeds are sometimes estimated on the basis of wind speed and damage sustained using the Fujita Scale. The scale rates the intensity or severity of tornado events using numeric values from EF0 to EF5 based on tornado wind speed and damage. An EF0 tornado (wind speed less than 85 miles per hour (mph)) indicates minimal damage (such as broken tree limbs), and an EF5 tornado (wind speeds over 200mph) indicates severe damage. Exposure: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the occurrence of a specific hazard. Extent: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard. Fire Behavior: Fire behavior refers to the physical characteristics of a fire and is a function of the interaction between the fuel characteristics (such as type of vegetation and structures that could burn), topography, and weather. Variables that affect fire behavior include the rate of spread, intensity, fuel consumption, and fire type (such as underbrush versus crown fire). Fire Frequency: Fire frequency is the broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. An estimate of the areas most likely to burn is based on past fire history or fire rotation in the area, fuel conditions, weather, ignition sources (such as human or lightning), fire suppression response, and other factors. Flash Flood: A flash flood occurs with little or no warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): FIRMs are the official maps on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Flood Insurance Study: A report published by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for a community in conjunction with the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. The study contains such background data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the FIRM. In most cases, a community FIRM with detailed mapping will have a corresponding flood insurance study. Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source. A flood insurance rate map identifies most, but not necessarily all, of a community’s floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 182 Floodway: Floodways are areas within a floodplain that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood discharge without increasing the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no development is allowed in floodways, as any structures located there would block the flow of floodwaters. Floodway Fringe: Floodway fringe areas are located in the floodplain but outside of the floodway. Some development is generally allowed in these areas, with a variety of restrictions. On maps that have identified and delineated a floodway, this would be the area beyond the floodway boundary that can be subject to different regulations. Fog: Fog refers to a cloud (or condensed water droplets) near the ground. Fog forms when air close to the ground can no longer hold all the moisture it contains. Fog occurs either when air is cooled to its dew point or the amount of moisture in the air increases. Heavy fog is particularly hazardous because it can restrict surface visibility. Severe fog incidents can close roads, cause vehicle accidents, cause airport delays, and impair the effectiveness of emergency response. Financial losses associated with transportation delays caused by fog have not been calculated in the United States but are known to be substantial. Freeboard: Freeboard is the margin of safety added to the base flood elevation. Frequency: For the purposes of this plan, frequency refers to how often a hazard of specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent is expected to occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year frequency is expected to occur about once every 100 years on average and has a 1% chance of occurring any given year. Frequency reliability varies depending on the type of hazard considered. Goal: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based, long-term, policy-type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is trying to achieve. The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have been met (that is, by the actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation). Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis. Hazard: A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition that could harm people and/or cause property damage. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster Hazards US Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) Loss Estimation Program: HAZUS-MH is a GIS- based program used to support the development of risk assessments as required under the DMA. The HAZUS-MH software program assesses risk in a quantitative manner to estimate damages and losses associated with natural hazards. HAZUS-MH is FEMA’s nationally applicable, standardized methodology and software program and contains modules for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and wind hazards. HAZUS-MH has also been used to assess vulnerability (exposure) for other hazards. Hydraulics: Hydraulics is the branch of science or engineering that addresses fluids (especially water) in motion in rivers or canals, works and machinery for conducting or raising water, the use of water as a prime mover, and other fluid-related areas. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 183 Hydrology: Hydrology is the analysis of waters of the earth. For example, a flood discharge estimate is developed by conducting a hydrologic study. Intensity: For the purposes of this plan, intensity refers to the measure of the effects of a hazard. Inventory: The assets identified in a study region comprise an inventory. Inventories include assets that could be lost when a disaster occurs and community resources are at risk. Assets include people, buildings, transportation, and other valued community resources. Landslide: Landslides can be described as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Fundamentally, slope failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope exceeds the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. Lightning: Lightning is an electrical discharge resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a “bolt,” usually within or between clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000ºF. The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by lightning each year (see http://www.fema.gov/hazard/thunderstorms/thunder.shtm). Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and flow horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids when liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy, and generally results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety. Local Government: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. Magnitude: Magnitude is the measure of the strength of an earthquake, and is typically measured by the Richter scale. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value. Mass movement: A collective term for landslides, mudflows, debris flows, sinkholes, and lahars. Mitigation: A preventive action that can be taken in advance of an event that will reduce or eliminate the risk to life or property. Mitigation Actions: Mitigation actions are specific actions to achieve goals and objectives that minimize the effects from a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property. Objective: For the purposes of this plan, an objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when combined with other objectives, forms a strategy or course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable. Peak Ground Acceleration: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the highest amplitude of ground shaking that accompanies an earthquake, based on a percentage of the force of gravity. Preparedness: Preparedness refers to actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens, and communities to respond to disasters. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 184 Presidential Disaster Declaration: These declarations are typically made for events that cause more damage than state and local governments and resources can handle without federal government assistance. Generally, no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for such declarations. A Presidential Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, designed to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Probability of Occurrence: The probability of occurrence is a statistical measure or estimate of the likelihood that a hazard will occur. This probability is generally based on past hazard events in the area and a forecast of events that could occur in the future. A probability factor based on yearly values of occurrence is used to estimate probability of occurrence. Repetitive Loss Property: Any NFIP-insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any changes of ownership during that period, has experienced: • Four or more paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00; or • Two paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00 within any 10-year period since 1978 or • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Return Period (or Mean Return Period): This term refers to the average period of time in years between occurrences of a particular hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of occurrence). Riverine: Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. Floodway maps can only be prepared for riverine floodplains. Risk: Risk is the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community. Risk measures the likelihood of a hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a specific type of hazard. Risk also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard. Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is the process of measuring potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to hazards and focuses on (1) hazard identification; (2) impacts of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets; (3) vulnerability identification; and (4) estimates of the cost of damage or costs that could be avoided through mitigation. Risk Ranking: This ranking serves two purposes, first to describe the probability that a hazard will occur, and second to describe the impact a hazard will have on people, property, and the economy. Risk estimates for the City are based on the methodology that the City used to prepare the risk assessment for this plan. The following equation shows the risk ranking calculation: Risk Ranking = Probability + Impact (people + property + economy). Robert T. Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-107, was signed into law on November 23, 1988. This law amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs. Sinkhole: A collapse depression in the ground with no visible outlet. Its drainage is subterranean. It is commonly vertical-sided or funnel-shaped. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 185 Special Flood Hazard Area: The base floodplain delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The SFHA is mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations and zone V in coastal situations. The SFHA may or may not encompass all of a community’s flood problems. Stakeholder: Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, managers of critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could impact hazard mitigation. Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion is common along rivers, streams and drains where banks have been eroded, sloughed or undercut. However, it is important to remember that a stream is a dynamic and constantly changing system. It is natural for a stream to want to meander, so not all eroding banks are “bad” and in need of repair. Generally, stream bank erosion becomes a problem where development has limited the meandering nature of streams, where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank structures (like bridges, culverts, etc.) are located in places where they can actually cause damage to downstream areas. Stabilizing these areas can help protect watercourses from continued sedimentation, damage to adjacent land uses, control unwanted meander, and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife. Steep Slope: Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being applied to, but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25%. For this study, steep slope is defined as slopes greater than 33%. Sustainable Hazard Mitigation: This concept includes the sound management of natural resources, local economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. Thunderstorm: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds. Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during the wet or dry seasons. Tornado: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud and the surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado’s vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1-mile-wide and 50 miles long. Vulnerability: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power. Flooding of an electric substation would affect not only the substation itself but businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. Watershed: A watershed is an area that drains downgradient from areas of higher land to areas of lower land to the lowest point, a common drainage basin. Wildfire: These terms refer to any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. The potential for wildfire is influenced by three factors: the presence of fuel, topography, and air mass. Fuel can include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and in the air such as tree canopies. Topography includes both slope and elevation. Air mass includes temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 186 duration, and the stability of the atmosphere at the time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most frequently, by human activity including smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. Windstorm: Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts exceeding 50 mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly constructed buildings, mobile homes (manufactured housing units), major infrastructure, and aboveground utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees and power lines; cause damage to residential, commercial, critical facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake. Zoning Ordinance: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 187 APPENDIX B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Grant County Sheriff's Office Emergency Management Every five years, Grant County is required to update the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). An HMP identifies the natural and human-caused hazards that affect Grant County and outlines plans, policies, and projects that will reduce the risk of loss of life and property from those hazards. Keeping the plan updated ensures that the most current and accurate information is being used to plan for hazards, and makes the County and other participating agencies eligible for federal grant funding under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA). The current plan was last updated in 2013 and is expired. Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The 2022 plan update process is being led by the Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management who received a grant from FEMA to update the plan. Join us for a virtual public meeting on May 17, 2022 at 7:00pm to learn more about the planning process and the results of the risk assessment. Click here to join the Zoom meeting. To call in, dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID: 879 2776 4300 and passcode: 845757. For more information about the plan or the process, please contact Kyle Foreman at kforeman@grantcountywa.gov . Click on the buttons to download the 2013 HMP. Volume 1 includes general plan information and the county-wide risk assessment. Volume 2 includes planning partner annexes. 2013 HMP Volume 1 2013 HMP Volume 2 Planning Partners Agencies that participate in the planning process with Grant County are called “Planning Partners.” Each Planning Partner will have their own section of the plan that outlines their hazards and the actions they identified that will reduce the risk to their city, district, or area. The 2022 plan update process includes the following Planning Partners: Grant County Town of Hartline Town of Wilson Creek City of Ephrata / Ephrata Fire Department City of Moses Lake / Moses Lake Fire Department City of Mattawa City of Warden Port of Quincy Port of Mattawa Port of Royal Slope Port of Moses Lake Grant County PHD 1 Moses Lake - Samaritan Fire District 10 (Royal Slope) Fire District 8 (Mattawa) What is Mitigation Mitigation is an action you take to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to lives and property. Putting mitigation actions in place before a disaster occurs can break repetitive damage cycles and reduce the impact of the disaster on the community. Examples of mitigation include: Seismic retrofit of buildings and bridges to protect against future earthquake damage of water systems and fuel systems to ensure they are available when needed Plant trees and vegetation to reduce landslide, dust storm, and erosion risk Provide educational programs to residents so they are better informed of risks Elevate buildings in floodplains to protect from flood damage Install generators at critical facilities to ensure they function during power outages Conduct studies to identify vulnerable infrastructure and locations Pipe or line irrigation canals to reduce water loss and increase water supply during droughts The preparedness cycle. Create defensible spaces around structures that are at risk from wildfire How to Participate Learn about the hazards that affect you and your community. View our hazard mapper to see where hazards are located. Take our survey! Share your knowledge about hazards in your community. Attend our Steering Committee meetings, held on the 4th Thursday of each month. Review the draft plan when it is released for public comment (estimated late summer). Cover Photo - Dry Falls Perteet Wild Horses Perteet Actualización de HMP del Condado de Grant Grant County Sheriff's Office Emergency Management Cada cinco años, el Condado de Grant debe actualizar el Plan de Mitigación de Riesgos (HMP). Un HMP identifica los peligros naturales y causados por el hombre que afectan al Condado de Grant y describe planes, políticas y proyectos que reducirán el riesgo de pérdida de vidas y propiedades por esos peligros. Mantener el plan actualizado garantiza que la información más actualizada y precisa se esté utilizando para planificar los peligros, y hace que el Condado y otras agencias participantes sean elegibles para recibir fondos de subvenciones federales bajo la Ley de Mitigación de Desastres de 2000 (DMA). El plan actual se actualizó por última vez en 2013 y ha expirado. El proceso de actualización del plan 2022 está siendo dirigido por la Oficina del Sheriff del Condado de Grant, Actualización de HMP del Condado de Grant que recibió una subvención de FEMA para actualizar el plan. Únase a nosotros para una reunión pública virtual el 17 de Mayo de 2022 a las 7:00 pm para obtener más información sobre el proceso de planificación y los resultados de la evaluación de riesgos. Haga clic aquí para unirse a la reunión de Zoom. Para llamar, marque 253-215-8782 e ingrese el ID de reunión: 879 2776 4300 y el código de acceso: 845757. Para obtener más información sobre el plan o el proceso, póngase en contacto con Kyle Foreman en kforeman@grantcountywa.gov . Haga clic en los botones para descargar el HMP 2013. El Volumen 1 incluye información general del plan y la evaluación de riesgos en todo el condado. El volumen 2 incluye anexos de socios de planificación. 2013 HMP Volume 1 2013 HMP Volume 2 Socios de planificación Las agencias que participan en el proceso de planificación con el Condado de Grant se llaman "Socios de Planificación". Cada socio de planificación tendrá su propia sección del plan que describe sus peligros y las acciones que identificaron que reducirán el riesgo para su ciudad, distrito o área. El proceso de actualización del plan 2022 incluye a los siguientes socios de planificación: Grant County Town of Hartline Town of Wilson Creek City of Ephrata / Ephrata Fire Department City of Moses Lake / Moses Lake Fire Department City of Mattawa City of Warden Port of Quincy Port of Mattawa Port of Royal Slope Port of Moses Lake Grant County PHD 1 Moses Lake - Samaritan Fire District 10 (Royal Slope) Fire District 8 (Mattawa) Qué es la mitigación La mitigación es una acción que se toma para reducir o eliminar el riesgo a largo plazo para las vidas y la propiedad. Implementar acciones de mitigación antes de que ocurra un desastre puede romper los ciclos de daños repetitivos y reducir el impacto del desastre en la comunidad. Ejemplos de mitigación incluyen: Modernización sísmica de edificios y puentes para proteger contra futuros daños sísmicos de los sistemas de agua y combustible para garantizar que estén disponibles cuando sea necesario Plantar árboles y vegetación para reducir el riesgo de deslizamiento de tierra, tormenta de polvo y erosión Proporcionar programas educativos a los residentes para que estén mejor informados de los riesgos Elevar los edificios en las llanuras de inundacion para protegerlos de los daños causados por las inundaciones Instalar generadores en instalaciones críticas para garantizar que funcionen durante los cortes de energía El ciclo de preparación Realizar estudios para identificar infraestructuras y ubicaciones vulnerables Canales de riego por tubería o línea para reducir la pérdida de agua y aumentar el suministro de agua durante las sequías Crear espacios defendibles alrededor de estructuras que están en riesgo de incendios Como participar Conozca los peligros que lo afectan a usted y a su comunidad. Vea nuestro mapeador de peligros para ver dónde se encuentran los peligros. ¡Responda nuestra encuesta! Comparta su conocimiento sobre los peligros en su comunidad. Asista a las reuniones de nuestro Comité Directivo, que se celebran el 4º jueves de cada mes. Revise el plan conceptual cuando se publique para comentarios públicos (estimado a fines del verano). Cover Photo - Dry Falls Perteet Wild Horses Perteet Natural Hazards in Grant County 243 Command Fire - June 2019 Grant County is at risk from several natural hazards. The sections below describe the natural hazards and the data you can view on the hazard mapper. Natural Hazards in Grant County Wildfire A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires firefighting to reduce the risk of loss of lives, health and safety, and property damage. Wildfire hazards cause both short-term and long-term impacts to effected areas. Short-term losses include the destruction of crops, vegetation, wildlife habitat, pastures, range land, and structures. Long-term effects of wildfires include the destruction of cultural and economic resources, community infrastructure, and an increased vulnerability to flooding and dust storms due to loss of vegetation. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas are the most likely to experience future impacts of wildfires. These are areas where human development is adjacent to or within densely vegetated areas. To learn more about your risk and how to protect your property from wildfires, visit https://wildfirerisk.org/ and https://www.dnr.wa.gov/firewise. Did you know that several common landscape plants are highly flammable, such as arborvitae? It only takes an ember to start these plants on fire and cause damage to your property. Click here to download guidance for planting fire resistant plants in Eastern Washington. Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes two wildfire layers. WUI Interface and Intermix areas identified by the Department of Natural Resources. Intermix is where vegetation and structures mingle, such as houses surrounded by rangeland or fields. Interface is where structures are adjacent to the vegetation, such as the outer edges of cities. Fire regime classifies patterns of fires depending on the potential fire severity, frequency, and time of year. Group I - Frequent fires with a low to mixed severity Group II - Frequent fires with a high severity Group III - Less frequent fires with low to mixed severity Group IV - Less frequent fires with high severity Group V - Infrequent fires with a high severity In Grant County, only 99 structures are in Regime Group I and 603 structures in Regime Group II. In Group III, there are almost 19,000 structures with a combined value of $10.7 Billion. In Group IV, there are almost 15,000 structures with a combined value of $6.3 Billion. There are only 398 structures in Regime Group V. 243 Command Fire - June 2019 Earthquake Grant County is exposed to earthquakes. Scientists have studied the Saddle Mountain Fault, near Mattawa and Royal City in south Grant County, and developed a scenario with a Magnitude 7.4 earthquake. This scenario helps us plan for potential impacts of a future earthquake. The epicenter for this scenario is about 9 miles south of Royal City and 11 miles east of Mattawa. If this earthquake scenario were to occur, there would be severe to violent shaking near Mattawa, Royal City, and the Wanapum Dam area. Warden would experience very strong shaking. Moses Lake would experience strong shaking. Other cities to the north of Moses Lake would experience weak to light shaking. Most of the damage would be in areas to the south of I- 90, with an estimated $227 million dollars of damage to buildings south of I-90. In the Moses Lake area, there would be about $47 million in building damage. County- wide, there would be an estimated $299 million in building damage. Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes two earthquake layers. Liquefaction areas are where the ground loses strength during an earthquake. The higher the liquefaction, the higher the chances of structural damage to roads, bridges, and buildings. M 7.4 Saddle Mountain fault scenario identifies where there will be heavy, moderate, and light shaking if the earthquake scenario were to occur. For more information on seismic hazards, view the DNR Geologic Information Map . For more information on the Saddle Mountain M7.4 Shakemap, view the USGS M7.4 Scenario Website . Severe Weather Severe weather can include extreme heat, fog, high winds, snow storms, and thunderstorms. The record setting extreme heat in June 2021 was a severe weather event. Dust and wind storms are frequent severe weather events in Grant County. The photo of a dust storm was taken by NASA's MODIS satellite on October 4, 2009. NASA's Worldview Map provides current and historical satellite photos taken by the MODIS satellite. There have been several tornadoes in Grant County since 1950. The most recent tornado was a EF0 that touched down about five miles northeast of Moses Lake in May 2010. Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes four weather layers. Beaufort Wind Scale (more info) Maximum Temperature Minimum Temperature Maximum Precipitation Flooding Grant County's unique landscape was formed by massive floods known as the "Missoula Floods" or the "Ice Age Floods." Thousands of years ago, these floods carved out Dry Falls, the Potholes, and coulees, and washed away everything in their path. For more information, check out this story map from DNR: Washington's Ice Age Floods . Today we don't need to worry about massive flooding from glacial lakes, but flooding is a hazard in Grant County. Flooding in Grant County often happens after heavy snowfall is followed by warm temperatures, or after high- intensity, short-duration rain storms. Both the Columbia River and Crab Creek, and their tributaries, are susceptible to flooding. Recently, flooding was caused when an irrigation canal failed, damaging private property and a county road. The threat of flooding in Grant County is highest from December through February, although floods may occur during other months of the year. Grant County has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1988. As part of the program, homeowners in the 1% chance floodplain (also known as the 100-year floodplain) must purchase flood insurance for their property if it has a mortgage. Landowners who do not have flood insurance are also more vulnerable to flooding, because homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage. They may be entirely responsible for the cost of repairs to their damaged structure. For more information on flood insurance and how to protect your home, visit FloodSmart.gov . Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes one layer. FEMA Flood Zone identifies areas that are within the 100-year floodplain and have a high risk of flooding. Flood Risk and Vulnerability There are 1229 buildings in Grant County within the 1% chance floodplain that are exposed to flood risks. The main sources of flooding are Crab Creek, Dry Creek, and Wilson Creek. Within Grant County, the City of Ephrata and Town of Wilson Creek are the most vulnerable to flooding. Ephrata In the City of Ephrata, Dry Creek is the source of flood waters. Heavy rainfall can cause flash flooding. In 1948, a May thunderstorm caused an 8-foot wall of water to rush down the creek into the City. Currently, the City of Ephrata has 816 buildings exposed to flooding, with a building and content value of over $300 million. This is over 30% of the total building and content value within the City. After a 1% chance flood, there would be about $70 million worth of damage to those buildings and contents, and over 2,000 people may be unable to return to their homes until they are repaired. In the map graphic, the area in blue is the 1% chance floodplain. Wilson Creek In the Town of Wilson Creek, flooding is caused by Crab Creek and Wilson Creek. There is a levee in the town which protects the Town from minor floods, but the 1% chance flood would overtop the levee. In 1957, flooding caused there to be 4 to 5 feet of water covering almost the entire town. The Town of Wilson Creek has 109 buildings exposed to flooding, with a building and content value of almost $9 million. This is over 36% of the total building and content value within the Town. After a 1% chance flood, there would be about $2 million worth of damage to those buildings and contents, and almost 150 people may be unable to return to their homes until they are repaired. Unincorporated County The unincorporated County has 254 buildings exposed to flooding, with a building and content value of over $93 million. This is about 1.5% of the total building and content value within the unincorporated County. After a 1% chance flood, there would be about $27 million worth of damage to those buildings and contents, and almost 570 people may be unable to return to their homes until they are repaired. Moses Lake The City of Moses Lake has 46 buildings exposed to flooding, with a building and content value of almost $25 million. Most of these structures are along the shores of Moses Lake. These buildings are less than 1% of the total building and content value within the City. After a 1% chance flood, there would be about $5million worth of damage to those buildings and contents, and almost 200 people may be unable to return to their homes until they are repaired. The remaining cities and towns in the County have minimal risk, with only zero or one building within the floodplain. Volcano Grant County has no active volcanoes within county borders, but is located down-wind from Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Hood, and Mt. Adams, and could experience impacts from volcanic eruptions of Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker, and Glacier Peak. In May of 1980, the ash fall from the Mount St. Helens eruption was deposited on over 50% of Grant County. Volcanic ash is destructive and is a risk to health, safety, and property. Ash from volcanic eruptions is extremely fine and composed of tiny, jagged pieces of rock and glass, and can be extremely harmful if inhaled. The ash is also abrasive and can cause issues in machinery by clogging air-filtration systems and scratching mechanical components. Ash can accumulate on rooftops and collapse roofs, gutters, and corrode metallic surfaces. News Articles about Mount St. Helens Mount St. Helens anniversary generates flood of memories - Columbia Basin Herald - May 25, 2020 40 years later, Mount St. Helens eruption remains an indelible memory - Columbia Basin Herald - May 17, 2020 Moses Lake - Washington Post - June 23, 1980 National Geographic cover photo by Douglas Miller, taken May 18, 1980 in Ephrata Mt. St. Helens wasn't the first ash fall in Grant County. 11 million years ago, a 30-foot layer of ash fell on the County after a supervolcano erupted near Boise. Watch the video to learn more about this event. Saddle Mountains Buried in Ash | Nick on the Rocks Drought Drought is the result of long periods of dry weather that lead to shortages in surface water and groundwater supplies. Droughts impact the economy and the environment. In Grant County, drought can have major impacts on: Agriculture - Drought threatens dryland crops that rely on natural precipitation and rangelands that raise cattle and feed wildlife. Water supply - Drought threatens supplies of water for irrigated crops and for communities. Fire hazard - Drought increases the threat of wildfires from dry conditions in forest and rangelands. The US Drought Monitor website tracks current drought conditions for the nation. Most of Grant County is currently in an Extreme Drought, and the seasonal outlook is predicting the drought to persist. {Espanol site for spanish version} Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes one drought layer. USA Drought Intensity is the same data shown in the graphic but updated weekly. Dam Failure Grant County's dams drive the economy by providing irrigation water, jobs, recreation, and industry. There are 73 dams in Grant County that serve several purposes. Grant County has several major hydro-electrical structures along and within its borders, including: Priest Rapids, O'Sullivan, Dryfalls, Wanapum, and Grand Coulee Dams. Other dams are used for irrigation water, flood control, recreation, water quality (such as sewage treatment or dairy lagoons), and for water supply. Dam failure usually occurs in one of four ways: overtopping of the primary dam structure, foundation defects, failure due to piping and seepage, and failure due to problems with conduits and valves. Dam failure is often the result of another disaster, such as an earthquake or a flood that caused structural damage. The Department of Ecology manages the state's dam safety program. Currently, all dams in Grant County are being properly maintained and are in satisfactory condition. Grand Coulee Dam: A Man-Made Marvel (Full Movie) The Columbia: America's Greatest Power Stream (1949) Landslides Landslides are caused by one or a combination of the following factors: a change in slope of terrain, increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations, changes in water content, groundwater movement, frost action, weathering of rocks, and removing or changing the type of vegetation covering the slope in question. Landslides may be very minor or very large, and can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, or human modification to the land. Most of Grant County's terrain is flat or rolling hills and has a very low risk of landslide. Areas that are at risk of landslide are along the canyons, coulees, and steep hillsides, such as near the Saddle Mountains, along the Columbia River, near Banks Lake and Grant Coulee area, and the old Columbia River Gorge between Soap Lake and Coulee City. The area at Grand Coulee dam is also subject to slides during heavy rains. The City of Grand Coulee has 23 buildings exposed to landslide risk. There are 31 buildings exposed to landslide risk in the unincorporated county. Hazard Mapper The hazard mapper includes two layers. Landslide prone slopes identifies areas with slopes greater than 33% that have a risk of failing. Landslide prone slopes with soft soils identifies areas with slopes greater than 33% and soft soils that have a higher risk of failing. Cover Photo - 243 Command Fire Grant County Sheriff's Office Facebook Landslide - Agatha Coulee © Steven Pavlov / https://commons.wiki media.org/wiki/User:Senapa / C C BY-SA 4.0 Volcano - Shoveling Ash Bob Juarez Peligros naturales en el condado de Grant 243 Command Fire - Junio 2019 El condado de Grant está en riesgo de varios peligros naturales. Las secciones a continuación describen los peligros naturales y los datos que puede ver en el mapa de peligros. Peligros naturales en el condado de Grant Incendios Un incendio es cualquier incendio incontrolado en tierras no desarrolladas que requiere la lucha contra incendios para reducir el riesgo de pérdida de vidas, salud y seguridad, y daños a la propiedad. Los peligros de incendios incontrolado causan impactos a corto y largo plazo en las áreas afectadas. Las pérdidas a corto plazo incluyen la destrucción de cultivos, vegetación, hábitat de vida silvestre, pastos, tierras de pastoreo y estructuras. Los efectos a largo plazo de los incendios incontrolados incluyen la destrucción de recursos culturales y económicos, infraestructura comunitaria y una mayor vulnerabilidad a las inundaciones y tormentas de polvo debido a la pérdida de vegetación. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) las áreas, donde el desarrollo humano es adyacente o dentro de áreas densamente vegetadas, son las más propensas a experimentar impactos futuros de los incendios. Para obtener más información sobre su riesgo y cómo proteger su propiedad de los incendios incontrolados, visita https://wildfirerisk.org/ y https://www.dnr.wa.gov/firewise. ¿Sabías que varias plantas comunes del paisaje son altamente inflamables, como arborvitae? Solo se necesita una brasa para incendiar estas plantas y causar daños a su propiedad. Haga clic aquí para descargar la guía para plantar plantas resistentes al fuego en el Este de Washington. Mapa de Peligros El mapa de peligros incluye dos capas de incendios forestales. WUI Áreas de intermix y interfaz identificadas por el Departamento de Recursos Naturales. Intermix es donde la vegetación y las estructuras se mezclan, como casas rodeadas de pastizales o campos. La interfaz es donde las estructuras están adyacentes a la vegetación, como los bordes exteriores de las ciudades. El régimen de incendios clasifica los modelos de incendios según la gravedad potencial del incendio, la frecuencia y la época del año. Grupo I - Incendios frecuentes de baja gravedad Grupo II - Incendios frecuentes con una alta severidad Grupo III - Incendios menos frecuentes con gravedad mixta Grupo IV - Incendios menos frecuentes y de alta gravedad Grupo V - Incendios poco frecuentes y de alta gravedad En el Condado de Grant, solo 99 estructuras están en el Grupo de Régimen I y 603 estructuras en el Grupo de Régimen II. En el Grupo III, hay casi 19,000 estructuras con un valor combinado de $ 10.7 mil millones. En el Grupo IV, hay casi 15,000 estructuras con un valor combinado de $ 6.3 mil millones. Sólo hay 398 estructuras en el Grupo de Régimen V. 243 Command Fire - Junio 2019 Terremoto El condado de Grant está expuesto a terremotos. Los científicos han estudiado la falla de Saddle Mountain, cerca de Mattawa y Royal City en el sur del condado de Grant, y han desarrollado un escenario con un terremoto de magnitud 7.4. Este escenario nos ayuda a planificar los posibles impactos de un futuro terremoto. El epicentro de este escenario está a unas 9 millas al sur de Royal City y a 11 millas al este de Mattawa. Si ocurriera este escenario de terremoto, habría temblores severos a violentos cerca de Mattawa, Royal City y el área de la Presa Wanapum. Warden experimentaría temblores muy fuertes. Moses Lake experimentaría fuertes temblores. Otras ciudades al norte de Moses Lake experimentarían temblores débiles a ligeros. La mayor parte de los daños se producirían en áreas al sur del I-90, con un estimado de $ 227 millones de dólares de daños a edificios al sur del I-90. En el área de Moses Lake, habría alrededor de $ 47 millones en daños al edificio. En todo el condado, habría un estimado de $ 299 millones en daños a edificios. Mapa de Peligros El mapa de peligros incluye dos capas sísmicas. Las áreas de licuefacción son donde el suelo pierde fuerza durante un terremoto. Cuanto mayor sea la licuefacción, mayores serán las posibilidades de daños estructurales en carreteras, puentes y edificios. M 7.4 Saddle Mountain El escenario de falla identifica dónde habrá temblores fuertes, moderados y ligeros si ocurriera el escenario de terremoto. Para obtener más información sobre los peligros sísmicos, consulte DNR Geologic Information Map . Para más información sobre Saddle Mountain M 7.4 Shakemap, consulte USGS M7.4 Scenario Website . Clima Severo El clima severo puede incluir calor extremo, niebla, vientos fuertes, tormentas de nieve y tormentas eléctricas. El récord de calor extremo en junio de 2021 fue un evento climático severo. Las tormentas de polvo y viento son eventos climáticos severos frecuentes en el condado de Grant. La foto de una tormenta de polvo y viento fue tomado por NASA's MODIS satélite el Octubre 4, 2009. NASA's Worldview Map proporciona fotos satelitales actuales e históricas tomadas por el MODIS satélite. Ha habido varios tornados en el condado de Grant desde 1950. El tornado más reciente fue un EF0 que tocó tierra a unas cinco millas al noreste de Moses Lake en Mayo de 2010. Mapa de Peligros El mapa de peligros incluye cuatro capas climáticas. Beaufort Escala de Viento (more info) Temperatura máxima media anual Temperatura mínima media anual Precipitación Maxima Inundacion El paisaje único del condado de Grant fue formado por inundaciones masivas conocidas como las "Inundaciones de Missoula" o las "Inundaciones de la Edad de Hielo". Hace miles de años, estas inundaciones tallaron Dry Falls, los Potholes y los Coulees, y arrastraron todo a su paso. Para mas informacion, consulte este mapa de DNR: Washington's Ice Age Floods . Hoy en día no tenemos que preocuparnos por las inundaciones masivas de los lagos glaciares, pero las inundaciones son un peligro en el condado de Grant. Las inundaciones en el condado de Grant a menudo ocurren después de fuertes nevadas seguidas de temperaturas cálidas, o después de tormentas de lluvia de alta intensidad y corta duración. Tanto el Río Columbia como Crab Creek, y sus afluentes, son susceptibles a las inundaciones. Recientemente, las inundaciones fueron causadas cuando un canal de riego falló, dañando propiedad privada y una carretera del condado. La amenaza de inundaciones en el condado de Grant es más alta de Diciembre a Febrero, aunque las inundaciones pueden ocurrir durante otros meses del año. El Condado de Grant ha participado en el Programa Nacional de Seguro contra Inundaciones (NFIP) desde 1988. Como parte del programa, los propietarios de viviendas en la llanura de inundación que tiene 1% de probabilidad (también conocida como la llanura de inundación de 100 años) debe comprar un seguro contra inundaciones para su propiedad si tiene una hipoteca. Los propietarios de tierras que no tienen seguro contra inundaciones también son más vulnerables a las inundaciones, porque el seguro de propietarios de viviendas no cubre los daños por inundación. Pueden ser totalmente responsables del costo de las reparaciones de su estructura dañada. Para obtener más información sobre el seguro contra inundaciones y cómo proteger su hogar, visite FloodSmart.gov . Mapa de Peligros El mapa de peligros incluye una capa. FEMA Zona de Inundación identifica áreas que están dentro de la llanura de inundación de 100 años y tienen un alto riesgo de inundación. Riesgo y vulnerabilidad a las inundaciones Hay 1229 edificios en el condado de Grant dentro de la llanura de inundación del 1% de probabilidad que están expuestos a riesgos de inundación. Las principales fuentes de inundaciones son Crab Creek, Dry Creek y Wilson Creek. Dentro del condado de Grant, la ciudad de Ephrata y la ciudad de Wilson Creek son las más vulnerables a las inundaciones. Ephrata En la ciudad de Ephrata, Dry Creek es la fuente de las aguas de la inundación. Las fuertes lluvias pueden causar inundaciones repentinas. En 1948, una tormenta eléctrica en Mayo causó que una pared de agua de 8 pies se precipitara por el arroyo hacia la ciudad. Actualmente, la ciudad de Ephrata tiene 816 edificios expuestos a inundaciones, con un valor de construcción y contenido de más de $ 300 millones. Esto es más del 30% del valor total del edificio y el contenido dentro de la Ciudad. Después de una inundación del 1% de probabilidad, habría alrededor de $ 70 millones en daños a esos edificios y contenidos, y más de 2,000 personas podrían no poder regresar a sus hogares hasta que sean reparados. En el gráfico del mapa, el área en azul es la llanura de inundación del 1% de probabilidad. Wilson Creek En la ciudad de Wilson Creek, las inundaciones son causadas por Crab Creek y Wilson Creek. Hay un dique en la ciudad que protege a la ciudad de inundaciones menores, pero la inundación del 1% de probabilidad superaría el dique. En 1957, las inundaciones causaron que hubiera de 4 a 5 pies de agua cubriendo casi toda la ciudad. La ciudad de Wilson Creek tiene 109 edificios expuestos a inundaciones, con un valor de construcción y contenido de casi $ 9 millones. Esto es más del 36% del valor total del edificio y el contenido dentro de la ciudad. Después de una inundación del 1% de probabilidad, habría alrededor de $ 2 millones en daños a esos edificios y contenidos, y casi 150 personas podrían no poder regresar a sus hogares hasta que sean reparados. Condado incorporado El condado no incorporado tiene 254 edificios expuestos a inundaciones, con un valor de construcción y contenido de más de $ 93 millones. Esto es aproximadamente el 1.5% del valor total del edificio y el contenido dentro del Condado no incorporado. Después de una inundación del 1% de probabilidad, habría alrededor de $ 27 millones en daños a esos edificios y contenidos, y casi 570 personas podrían no poder regresar a sus hogares hasta que sean reparados. Moses Lake La ciudad de Moses Lake tiene 46 edificios expuestos a inundaciones, con un valor de construcción y contenido de casi $ 25 millones. La mayoría de estas estructuras se encuentran a lo largo de las orillas del lago Moses lake. Estos edificios son menos del 1% del valor total del edificio y el contenido dentro de la Ciudad. Después de una inundación del 1% de probabilidad, habría alrededor de $ 5 millones en daños a esos edificios y contenidos, y casi 200 personas podrían no poder regresar a sus hogares hasta que sean reparados. Las ciudades y pueblos restantes en el Condado tienen un riesgo mínimo, con solo cero o un edificio dentro de la llanura de inundación. Volcán El condado de Grant no tiene volcanes activos dentro de las fronteras del condado, pero se encuentra a baja altura del Monte St. Helens, el Monte Hood y el Monte Adams, y podría experimentar impactos de erupciones volcánicas del Monte Rainier, el Monte Baker y el Pico del Glaciar. En Mayo de 1980, la caída de ceniza de la erupción del Monte St. Helens se depositó en más del 50% del condado de Grant. La ceniza volcánica es destructiva y es un riesgo para la salud, la seguridad y la propiedad. La ceniza de las erupciones volcánicas es extremadamente fina y está compuesta de pequeños trozos irregulares de roca y vidrio, y puede ser extremadamente dañina si se inhala. La ceniza también es abrasiva y puede causar problemas en la maquinaria al obstruir los sistemas de filtración de aire y rayar los componentes mecánicos. Las cenizas pueden acumularse en los tejados y colapsar techos, desagües y corroer superficies metálicas. Artículos de noticias sobre Mount St. Helens Mount St. Helens anniversary generates flood of memories - Columbia Basin Herald - Mayo 25, 2020 40 years later, Mount St. Helens eruption remains an indelible memory - Columbia Basin Herald - Mayo 17, 2020 Moses Lake - Washington Post - Junio 23, 1980 Foto de portada de National Geographic por Douglas Miller, tomado Mayo 18, 1980 en Ephrata Mt. St. Helens no fue la primera caída de ceniza en el condado de Grant. Hace 11 millones de años, una capa de ceniza de 30 pies cayó sobre el condado después de que un supervolcán entrara en erupción cerca de Boise. Vea el video para obtener más información sobre este evento. Saddle Mountains Enterrado en ceniza | Nick en las rocas Sequía La sequía es el resultado de largos períodos de clima seco que conducen a la escasez de agua superficial y suministros de agua subterránea. Las sequías afectan a la economía y al medio ambiente. En el condado de Grant, la sequía puede tener un gran impacto en: Agricultura - La sequía amenaza los cultivos de secano que dependen de las precipitaciones naturales y los pastizales que crían ganado y alimentan a la vida silvestre. Fuente de agua - La sequía amenaza los suministros de agua para los cultivos de regadío y para las comunidades. Incendio - La sequía aumenta la amenaza de incendios forestales debido a las condiciones secas en los bosques y pastizales. El US Drought Monitor website rastrea las condiciones actuales de sequía para la nación. La mayor parte del condado de Grant se encuentra actualmente en una sequía extrema, y la perspectiva estacional predice que la sequía persistirá. Mapa de peligros El mapeador de peligros incluye una capa de sequía. USA Drought Intensity son los mismos datos que se muestran en el gráfico pero se actualizan semanalmente. Falla de la Presa Las represas del Condado de Grant impulsan la economía al proporcionar agua de riego, empleos, recreación e industria. Hay 73 presas en el condado de Grant que sirven para varios propósitos. El condado de Grant tiene varias estructuras hidroeléctricas importantes a lo largo y dentro de sus fronteras, incluido: Priest Rapids, O'Sullivan, Dryfalls, Wanapum, and Grand Coulee Dams. Otras presas se utilizan para el agua de riego, el control de inundaciones, la recreación, la calidad del agua (como el tratamiento de aguas residuales o las lagunas lecheras) y para el suministro de agua. La falla de la presa generalmente ocurre de una de cuatro maneras: sobrepaso de la estructura de la presa primaria, defectos de cimentación, falla debido a tuberías y filtraciones, y falla debido a problemas con conductos y válvulas. La falla de la presa a menudo es el resultado de otro desastre, como un terremoto o una inundación que causó daños estructurales. El Departamento de Ecología administra el programa de seguridad de presas del estado. Actualmente, todas las presas en el condado de Grant se mantienen adecuadamente y están en condiciones satisfactorias. Grand Coulee Dam: A Man-Made Marvel (pelicula completa) The Columbia: America's Greatest Power Stream (1949) Deslizamentos Los deslizamientos de tierra son causados por uno o una combinación de los siguientes factores: un cambio en la pendiente del terreno, aumento de la carga en la tierra, choques y vibraciones, cambios en el contenido de agua, movimiento de aguas subterráneas, heladas, meteorización de rocas y eliminación o cambio del tipo de vegetación que cubre la ladera en cuestión. Los deslizamientos de tierra pueden ser muy menores o muy grandes, y pueden ser iniciados por tormentas, terremotos, incendios, erupciones volcánicas o modificaciones humanas en la tierra. La mayor parte del terreno del condado de Grant es plano o colinas onduladas y tiene un riesgo muy bajo de deslizamiento de tierra. Las áreas que están en riesgo de deslizamiento de tierra se encuentran a lo largo de los cañones, coulees, y laderas empinadas, como cerca de las Montañas Saddle, a lo largo del río Columbia, cerca del lago Banks y el área de Grant Coulee, y la antigua Garganta del río Columbia entre Soap Lake y Coulee City. El área en la presa de Grand Coulee también está sujeta a deslizamientos durante las fuertes lluvias. La ciudad de Grand Coulee tiene 23 edificios expuestos al riesgo de deslizamiento de tierra. Hay 31 edificios expuestos al riesgo de deslizamiento de tierra en el condado no incorporado. Mapa de peligros El mapa de peligros incluye dos capas. Laderas propensas a deslizamientos de tierra identifica áreas con pendientes superiores al 33% que tienen riesgo de falla. Laderas propensas a deslizamientos de tierra con suelos blandos identifican áreas con pendientes superiores al 33% y suelos blandos que tienen un mayor riesgo de fallar. Fotode Portada - 243 Command Fire Facebook de la Oficina del Sheriff del Condado de Grant Deslizamiento- Agatha Coulee © Steven Pavlov / https://commons.wiki media.org/wiki/User:Senapa / C C BY-SA 4.0 Volcan – Paleando ceniza Bob Juarez How to use the Hazard Mapper Cómo usar el Hazard Mapper The Hazard Mapper provides approximate information about the location of natural hazards within Grant County. Information about the data is provided in "Hazards in Grant County." El Mapa de Peligros proporciona información aproximada sobre la ubicación de los peligros naturales dentro del Condado de Grant. La información sobre los datos se proporciona en "Peligros en el condado de Grant". How to use the Hazard Mapper Data Disclaimer and Terms of Service The information provided by Grant County is provided 'as is' and for reference only. The user expressly agrees that the use of Grant County's web site is at the user's sole risk. Grant County does not warrant that the service will be uninterrupted or error free. Any information published on this server could contain technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes may be made periodically to the tax laws, administrative rules, tax releases and similar materials; these changes may or may not be incorporated in any new materials on the web site. Grant County makes every effort to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data provided, its use, or its interpretation. Grant County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. If you have obtained information from a source other than Grant County, be aware that electronic data can be altered subsequent to original distribution. Data can also quickly become out-of- date. It is recommended that careful attention be paid to the contents of any data associated with a file, and that the originator of the data or information be contacted with any questions regarding appropriate use. You should always use the original recorded documents for legal transactions. In no event shall Grant County become liable to users of this data, or any other party, for any loss or damages, consequential or otherwise, including but not limited to time, money, or goodwill, arising from the use, misuse, operation or modification of the data. In using the data, users further agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Grant County for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy, currency or completeness, or correctness of the data, the use or misuse of the data. 2/28/2023 1 Presented to GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN - UPDATE Public Meeting #2 February 28, 2023 Today’s Speakers •Christina Wollman, Senior Planner, Perteet 2/28/2023 2 What We will Talk About •What is mitigation? •Why are we planning for natural hazards? •The planning process •The Steering Committee •Goals •The draft plan •Questions and discussion Goals Objectives Actions What is Mitigation? Five Phases of Emergency Management Mitigation is: “Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property” 2/28/2023 3 Why are we planning? The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) Federal legislation that establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) “No Plan, no money!” Other Reasons to Plan •Pro-active vs. Reactive •Establish/maintain eligibility for grant funds •Support other planning mechanisms o Land use plans o Wildfire protection plans o Emergency response plans •Can set the course for response and recovery to impacts from natural disasters 2/28/2023 4 What is Required in a DMA Plan? According to Section 201.6, 44CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), an approved plan must: •Engage the public through all phases of the plan’s development •Review and incorporate plans and programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation •Assess risk to natural hazards that impact a planning area •Identify a plan maintenance strategy •Identify and prioritize actions A Multi-Jurisdictional Plan •Preferred format by FEMA •Identifies/creates the partnerships that enhance grant funding opportunities •For multi-jurisdictional plans, all partners must: Participate in the process Rank risk Perform a capability assessment Identify/Prioritize jurisdiction specific actions 2/28/2023 5 The Planning Partnership The Plan will cover seven local governments within Grant County: •Grant County unincorporated areas •Two cities/towns (Moses Lake, Hartline) •Two ports (Port of Quincy, Royal Slope) •One fire district (Fire Protection District #10 Royal Slope Fire-Rescue-EMS) •One Hospital District (District #1 Samaritan Healthcare) Brush Fire – August 2021 (Beverly) The Planning Process •County personnel applied for and received FEMA planning grants •County procured a facilitator for the process (Perteet and Tetra Tech) •For the past 12 Months: •Assembled a partnership of 15 Local Governments •Established a Steering Committee •Assessed risk from eight hazards of concern •Engaged the Public •Confirmed goals, objectives and actions •Identified a plan maintenance strategy •Identified and prioritized mitigation actions. 2/28/2023 6 The Planning Area The planning area for this effort covers all of Grant County. Hazards of Concern Dam failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Wildfire Technological Hazards The “Powerline” Wildfire. July 2019 Dust storm on I-90. August 2014 2/28/2023 7 Goals 1.Protect life, property, and the environment. 2.Increase the whole community’s awareness of their risk to hazards through education, outreach, and partnerships. 3.Support local capacity building that enable the community to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impact of hazards and disasters. 4.Establish a hazard and disaster resilient economy. 5.Encourage the development and implementation of resilient, long-term, cost-effective, and equitable mitigation projects. The Draft Plan •Two Volumes •Volume 1 applies to all planning partners •Volume 2 is jurisdiction specific •Plan is Comprehensive! •Mission Statement, 5 goals, and 11 objectives •Plan has a 5-year performance period 2/28/2023 8 For More Information Project Website: https://www.grantcountywa.gov/923/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-Update The site includes: •Steering Committee Meeting Agenda and Summaries •Draft Plan •Will be site for Final Plan and progress reports Public Comment Period •Begins today and ends on March 14, 2023 •After public comment period, plan will be submitted to Washington Emergency Management Division by March 17, 2023 •After EMD reviews, they will send the plan to FEMA for approval. •After FEMA reviews the plan, all planning partners will adopt their portion of the plan by resolution. 2/28/2023 9 Questions? County Project Manager: •Kyle Foreman, Public Information Officer •Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 1 / 33 100.00%47 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q1 Do you live in Grant County? Answered: 47 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 47 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes No, but I work in the County No, but I recreate in ... No, but I own a second hom... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No, but I work in the County No, but I recreate in the County No, but I own a second home or property within the County Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 2 / 33 Q2 Where in Grant County do you live? Answered: 47 Skipped: 0 Beverly Coulee City Coulee Dam Crescent Bar Desert Aire Electric City Ephrata George Grant Coulee Hartline Marlin Mattawa Moses Lake Quincy Royal City Soap Lake Sunland Estates Stratford Warden Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 3 / 33 0.00%0 4.26%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 31.91%15 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 23.40%11 2.13%1 0.00%0 31.91%15 0.00%0 2.13%1 0.00%0 2.13%1 2.13%1 TOTAL 47 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE There are no responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Warden Wilson Creek Unincorporated county ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Beverly Coulee City Coulee Dam Crescent Bar Desert Aire Electric City Ephrata George Grant Coulee Hartline Marlin Mattawa Moses Lake Quincy Royal City Soap Lake Sunland Estates Stratford Warden Wilson Creek Unincorporated county Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 4 / 33 Q3 Which of the following natural hazard events have you or has anyone in your household experienced in the past 20 years within Grant County? (Check all that apply) Answered: 47 Skipped: 0 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Avalanche Dam/Levee Failure Disease Epidemic Drought Earthquake Flood Hazardous Materials... Ice Storm Landslide Severe Weather (excessive... Volcanic Eruption Wildland Fire Urban Fire None of these Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 5 / 33 0.00%0 2.13%1 38.30%18 29.79%14 6.38%3 6.38%3 4.26%2 34.04%16 0.00%0 74.47%35 4.26%2 48.94%23 4.26%2 12.77%6 4.26%2 Total Respondents: 47 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Excessive wind damage 5/19/2022 11:01 AM 2 COVID pandemic 5/19/2022 8:12 AM ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Avalanche Dam/Levee Failure Disease Epidemic Drought Earthquake Flood Hazardous Materials Incident Ice Storm Landslide Severe Weather (excessive heat/cold, wind, lightening, snow storms, etc) Volcanic Eruption Wildland Fire Urban Fire None of these Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 6 / 33 Q4 How prepared is your household is to deal with a natural hazard event? Answered: 41 Skipped: 6 14.63% 6 48.78% 20 29.27% 12 7.32% 3 0.00% 0 41 2.15 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Not at all p…Somewhat …Adequately…Well prepar… Very well pr… Choose one: NOT AT ALL PREPARED SOMEWHAT PREPARED ADEQUATELY PREPARED WELL PREPARED VERY WELL PREPARED TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Choose one: Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 7 / 33 Q5 Which of the following have provided you with useful information to help you be prepared for a natural hazard event? (Check all that apply) Answered: 41 Skipped: 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Emergency preparedness... Personal experience w... Locally provided new... Schools and other academ... Attended meetings tha... Community Emergency... Church Red Cross None Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 8 / 33 58.54%24 51.22%21 36.59%15 9.76%4 24.39%10 12.20%5 17.07%7 2.44%1 4.88%2 14.63%6 Total Respondents: 41 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Youtube 5/23/2022 8:07 AM 2 Survival guides 5/19/2022 11:05 AM 3 I'm a long time vol firefighter emt .5/19/2022 8:57 AM 4 Emergency Preparedness training at work 5/19/2022 8:18 AM 5 NIXEL from GCSO 5/19/2022 8:14 AM 6 Hate to say it but, FB local pages, was very helpful 5/17/2022 10:24 PM ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Emergency preparedness information from a government source (e.g., federal, state, or local emergency management) Personal experience with one or more naturalhazards/disasters Locally provided news or other media information Schools and other academic institutions Attended meetings that have dealt with disaster preparedness Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) Church Red Cross None Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 9 / 33 Q6 Which of the following steps has your household taken to prepare for a natural hazard event? (Check all that apply) Answered: 41 Skipped: 6 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 10 / 33 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Developed a household... Received first aid/CPR... Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Identified utility... Emergency Generator Sand bags Prepared a disaster sup... Installed smoke detect... Stored food and water Stored flashlights ... Stored a battery-powe... Stored a fire extinguisher Stored medical supplies (fi... Natural hazard insurance... 72-Hour sustainabili... Alternative water supply... None Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 11 / 33 24.39%10 80.49%33 41.46%17 39.02%16 41.46%17 19.51%8 4.88%2 39.02%16 73.17%30 60.98%25 80.49%33 34.15%14 73.17%30 68.29%28 19.51%8 34.15%14 2.44%1 2.44%1 0.00%0 Total Respondents: 41 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE There are no responses. ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Developed a household emergency response plan addressing a variety of hazards Received first aid/CPR training Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Identified utility shutoffs Emergency Generator Sand bags Prepared a disaster supply kit Installed smoke detectors on each level of the house Stored food and water Stored flashlights and batteries Stored a battery-powered radio Stored a fire extinguisher Stored medical supplies (first aid kit, medications) Natural hazard insurance (Flood, Earthquake, Wildfire) 72-Hour sustainability kit Alternative water supply for fire fighting None Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 12 / 33 Q7 How concerned are you about the following natural hazards in Grant County? (Check one response for each hazard) Answered: 43 Skipped: 4 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 13 / 33 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Not Concer…Somewhat …Concerned Very Conce… Climate Change Dam/Levee Failure Disease/Epidemi c Drought Earthquake Flood Hazardous Materials Incident Ice Storm Landslide Severe Weather Terrorism and Civil Disturbance Volcanic Eruption Wildland Fire Urban Fire (Structure) Agricultural/Cr op Loss Other Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 14 / 33 48.84% 21 16.28% 7 18.60% 8 16.28% 7 43 2.02 30.23% 13 51.16% 22 11.63% 5 6.98% 3 43 1.95 23.81% 10 33.33% 14 28.57% 12 14.29% 6 42 2.33 4.88% 2 53.66% 22 24.39% 10 17.07% 7 41 2.54 51.22% 21 31.71% 13 14.63% 6 2.44% 1 41 1.68 53.49% 23 30.23% 13 11.63% 5 4.65% 2 43 1.67 34.88% 15 41.86% 18 18.60% 8 4.65% 2 43 1.93 28.21% 11 48.72% 19 17.95% 7 5.13% 2 39 2.00 38.10% 16 35.71% 15 23.81% 10 2.38% 1 42 1.90 73.81% 31 11.90% 5 9.52% 4 4.76% 2 42 1.45 9.30% 4 51.16% 22 20.93% 9 18.60% 8 43 2.49 31.71% 13 29.27% 12 29.27% 12 9.76% 4 41 2.17 45.00% 18 30.00% 12 25.00% 10 0.00% 0 40 1.80 47.50% 19 35.00% 14 15.00% 6 2.50% 1 40 1.73 6.98% 3 30.23% 13 37.21% 16 25.58% 11 43 2.81 38.46% 15 35.90% 14 12.82% 5 12.82% 5 39 2.00 23.26% 10 34.88% 15 25.58% 11 16.28% 7 43 2.35 63.64% 7 9.09% 1 27.27% 3 0.00% 0 11 1.64 #PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER NATURAL HAZARD DATE 1 Power outage 5/19/2022 10:33 AM 2 Ice /snow storm with several day's without power is a concern .5/19/2022 8:57 AM 3 Dam/Levee failure especially since the Othello incident 5/18/2022 11:12 AM 4 Civil unrest when criminals & thugs take advantage.5/17/2022 7:48 PM NOT CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED CONCERNED VERY CONCERNED TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Climate Change Dam/Levee Failure Disease/Epidemic Drought Earthquake Flood Hazardous Materials Incident Ice Storm Landslide Severe Weather Terrorism and Civil Disturbance Volcanic Eruption Wildland Fire Urban Fire (Structure) Agricultural/Crop Loss Other Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 15 / 33 Q8 Which of the following methods do you think are most effective for providing hazard and disaster information? (Check all that apply) Answered: 43 Skipped: 4 Newspaper Informational Brochures City Newsletters Public Meetings Workshops Schools TV News TV Ads Radio News Radio Ads Internet Outdoor Advertisements Fire Department/R... Law Enforcement Church (faith-based... CERT Classes Public Awareness... Chamber of Commerce Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 16 / 33 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Academic Institutions Public Library Red Cross Information Community Safety Events Fair Booths Word of Mouth Social Media (Twitter,... Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 17 / 33 30.23%13 34.88%15 16.28%7 27.91%12 20.93%9 34.88%15 41.86%18 6.98%3 46.51%20 18.60%8 86.05%37 13.95%6 46.51%20 39.53%17 32.56%14 18.60%8 53.49%23 9.30%4 11.63%5 16.28%7 18.60%8 30.23%13 32.56%14 32.56%14 83.72%36 Total Respondents: 43 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Newspaper Informational Brochures City Newsletters Public Meetings Workshops Schools TV News TV Ads Radio News Radio Ads Internet Outdoor Advertisements Fire Department/Rescue Law Enforcement Church (faith-based institutions) CERT Classes Public Awareness Campaign (e.g., Flood Awareness Week, Winter Storm Preparedness Month) Chamber of Commerce Academic Institutions Public Library Red Cross Information Community Safety Events Fair Booths Word of Mouth Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 18 / 33 0.00%0 90.70%39 9.30%4 Q9 Have you ever had problems getting homeowners or renters insurance due to risks from natural hazards? Answered: 43 Skipped: 4 TOTAL 43 #IF YES, WHICH NATURAL HAZARD WAS INVOLVED?DATE There are no responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Not Sure Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 19 / 33 59.52%25 38.10%16 2.38%1 Q10 When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a natural disaster could have on your home? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Not Sure Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 20 / 33 23.81%10 50.00%21 26.19%11 Q11 Was the presence of a natural hazard risk zone (e.g., dam failure zone, flood zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) disclosed to you by a real estate agent, seller, or landlord before you purchased or moved into your home? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes No Not Sure ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Not Sure Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 21 / 33 60.00%24 40.00%16 Q12 Would you support the regulation (restriction) of land uses within known high hazard areas? Answered: 40 Skipped: 7 TOTAL 40 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes, would support No, would not support ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes, would support No, would not support Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 22 / 33 Q13 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:It is the responsibility of government (local, state and federal) to provide education and programs that promote citizen actions that will reduce exposure to the risks associated with natural hazards. Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 11.90% 5 9.52% 4 19.05% 8 23.81% 10 35.71% 15 42 3.62 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Strongly Di…Somewhat …Neither Agr…Somewhat … Strongly Ag… Choose one: STRONGLY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Choose one: Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 23 / 33 Q14 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:It is my responsibility to educate myself about how to reduce my exposure to the risks associated with natural hazards. Answered: 41 Skipped: 6 0.00% 0 2.44% 1 7.32% 3 19.51% 8 70.73% 29 41 4.59 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Strongly Di…Somewhat …Neither Agr…Somewhat … Strongly Ag… Choose one: STRONGLY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Choose one: Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 24 / 33 Q15 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:Information about the risks associated with natural hazards is readily available and easy to locate. Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 2.38% 1 21.43% 9 30.95% 13 28.57% 12 16.67% 7 42 3.36 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Strongly Di…Somewhat …Neither Agr…Somewhat … Strongly Ag… Choose one: STRONGLY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Choose one: Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 25 / 33 0.00%0 9.52%4 9.52%4 28.57%12 16.67%7 30.95%13 4.76%2 Q16 The following demographic information will aid in evaluating the responses to this questionnaire. The answers will be used only for the preparation of this plan and will not be provided to any other group or interest. Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Under 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or older Prefer not to answer ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Under 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or older Prefer not to answer Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 26 / 33 92.86%39 2.38%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 4.76%2 0.00%0 Q17 Please indicate the primary language spoken in your household. Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE There are no responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% English Spanish Other Indo-Europea... Asian and Pacific Isla... Prefer not to Answer Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES English Spanish Other Indo-European Languages Asian and Pacific Island Languages Prefer not to Answer Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 27 / 33 16.67%7 78.57%33 4.76%2 0.00%0 Q18 Please indicate your gender: Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE There are no responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Male Female Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Male Female Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 28 / 33 0.00%0 0.00%0 11.90%5 30.95%13 38.10%16 14.29%6 4.76%2 Q19 Please indicate your highest level of education. Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Grade school/No... Some high school High school graduate/GED Some college/Trad... College degree Graduate degree Prefer not to Answer ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Grade school/No schooling Some high school High school graduate/GED Some college/Trade school College degree Graduate degree Prefer not to Answer Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 29 / 33 0.00%0 14.29%6 21.43%9 19.05%8 45.24%19 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q20 How long have you lived in Grant County? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years I don't live in Grant County Prefer not to Answer ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years I don't live in Grant County Prefer not to Answer Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 30 / 33 85.71%36 14.29%6 Q21 Do you own or rent your place of residence? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Own Rent ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Own Rent Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 31 / 33 7.14%3 16.67%7 14.29%6 9.52%4 38.10%16 14.29%6 Q22 How much is your gross household income? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% $20,000 or less $20,001 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Prefer not to Answer ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $20,000 or less $20,001 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Prefer not to Answer Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 32 / 33 100.00%42 0.00%0 Q23 Do you have regular access to the Internet? Answered: 42 Skipped: 5 TOTAL 42 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan (English) 33 / 33 Q24 If you have additional information you would like to share about your knowledge and experience regarding local natural hazards and disasters, we invite you to provide your information here. This survey and your comments are completely confidential and greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Answered: 6 Skipped: 41 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Supply Chain Shortages 5/20/2022 8:12 AM 2 People need a good fire break around all of there structure's and nothing stacked up against a building like firewood . 5/19/2022 9:03 AM 3 I think a campaign is a great idea. Picking a theme a month and then mailing out a flier with "what you need to know" "how to be prepared" and "resources" would be extremely helpful. People can then quickly and efficiently educate themselves without any kind of time commitment. 5/19/2022 8:37 AM 4 New city council member here - how do we get the city of Soap Lake involved in your efforts?5/18/2022 11:15 AM 5 Do more emergency preparedness classes at some of the large industrial employers like the data centers. We had one 3 years ago and it was very helpful, even though Sandy did it. We have monthly safety meetings and this would be a great topic for us. 5/17/2022 8:55 PM 6 I believe the value of amateur 2-way radio is under-rated and ignored by many, including city governments and planners. Every system can fail and we rely to much on government taking care of our problems. I am not hard-core preparedness, but I do some; I wish more would do so as well. 5/17/2022 7:54 PM NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 188 APPENDIX C FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each program enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional annexes of Volume 2. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2. Federal Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with the Act in emergency management and disaster-related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations. The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert, officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have all necessary information. Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with visual impairments may not see flashing lights or other visual alerts. Two technical documents for shelter operators address physical accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals. The ADA intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regards to transportation, social services, temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and transit (e.g., vehicles with wheelchair lifts or paratransit buses). Evacuation and other response plans should address the unique needs of residents. Local governments may be interested in implementing a special-needs registry to identify the home addresses, contact information, and needs for residents who may require more assistance. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Bureau of Indian Affairs The US Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Fire and Aviation Management National Interagency Fire Center provides wildfire protection, fire use and hazardous fuels management, and emergency rehabilitation on NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 189 Indian forest and rangelands held in trust by the United States, based on fire management plans approved by the appropriate Indian Tribe. Bureau of Land Management The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. BLM works closely with the Forest Service and state and local governments to coordinate fire safety activities. The Interagency Fire Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho serves as the center for this effort. Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nation origin and requires equal access to public places and employment. The Act is relevant to emergency management and hazard mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another. Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well-being of all residents equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s surface waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. Numerous issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach. The CWA is important to hazard mitigation in several ways. There are often permitting requirements for any construction within 200 feet of water of the United States, which may have implications for mitigation projects identified by a local jurisdiction. Additionally, CWA requirements apply to wetlands, which serve important functions related to preserving and protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and are linked with a community’s floodplain management program. Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is part of the CWA and addresses local stormwater management programs. Stormwater management plays a critical role in hazard mitigation by addressing urban drainage or localized flooding issues within jurisdictions. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 190 Recovery grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Housing and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for CDBG-DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria: • Address a disaster-related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered disaster. • Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers). • Meet a national objective. Incorporating preparedness and mitigation into these actions is encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in ways that are safer and stronger. CDBG-DR funding is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan. Community Rating System The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: • Reduce flood losses. • Facilitate accurate insurance rating. • Promote awareness of flood insurance. For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5%. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45% premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5% discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the special flood hazard area receive smaller discounts: a 10% discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5% discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories: • Public information. • Mapping and regulations. • Flood damage reduction. • Flood preparedness. CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66% of the NFIP’s policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks. Disaster Mitigation Act The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 191 in place before Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds. Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program The US Forest Service’s Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program was established to assist federal agencies with repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to public travel and have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure. The program funds both emergency and permanent repairs (Office of Federal Lands Highway, 2016). Eligible activities under this program meet some of the goals and objectives for this plan and the program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Emergency Watershed Program The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not dependent on a national emergency declaration. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. EWP is an emergency recovery program. Financial and technical assistance are available for the following activities (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016): • Remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges. • Reshape and protect eroded banks. • Correct damaged drainage facilities. • Establish cover on critically eroding lands. • Repair levees and structures. • Repair conservation practices. This federal program could be a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan. Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms: • Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.) NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 192 • Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species. • Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.” Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it: • Section 4: Listing of a Species—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the US Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time of listing. • Section 7: Consultation—Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a “consultation.” If the listing agency finds that an action will “take” a species, it must propose mitigations or “reasonable and prudent” alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed. • Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is unlawful to “take” an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. • Section 10: Permitted Take—Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.” • Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA’s prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: • Potential dam safety problems. • Complaints about constructing and operating a project. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 193 • Safety concerns related to natural disasters. • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre- feet. FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forest Restoration Act Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). These documents call for a single comprehensive federal fire policy for the Interior and Agriculture Departments (the agencies using federal fire management resources). They mandate community-based collaboration to reduce risks from wildfire. National Dam Safety Act Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Inspection Act in 1972, creation of the National Dam Safety Program in 1996, and reauthorization of the program through the Dam Safety Act in 2006. National Dam Safety Program, administered by FEMA requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in the country; exceptions include the following: • Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, or International Boundary and Water Commission. • Dams constructed pursuant to licenses issued under the Federal Power Act. • Dams that the Secretary of the Army determines do not pose any threat to human life or property. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives and property of the public. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA’s leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 194 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations. The National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality, whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for compliance. Consideration and decision- making regarding environmental impacts must be documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements. National Fire Plan (2001) The 2001 National Fire Plan was developed based on the National Fire Policy. A major aspect of the National Fire Plan is joint risk reduction planning and implementation carried out by federal, state and local agencies and communities. The National Fire Plan presented a comprehensive strategy in five key initiatives: • Firefighting—Be adequately prepared to fight fires each fire season. • Rehabilitation and Restoration—Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfires. • Hazardous Fuel Reduction—Invest in projects to reduce fire risk. • Community Assistance—Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection. • Accountability—Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for performance. National Flood Insurance Program The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1%-annual-chance flood and the 0.2%-annual-chance flood. Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under the local floodplain management program. In recent years, Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are more accessible to residents, local governments and stakeholders. Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met: • New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 1-%-annual-chance flood. • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 195 • New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species. Full compliance and good standing under the NFIP are application prerequisites for all FEMA grant programs for which participating jurisdictions are eligible under this plan. Grant County and all cities participate in the NFIP and have adopted and enforced floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the requirements of the NFIP. At the time of the preparation of this plan, these jurisdictions were in good standing with NFIP requirements. National Incident Management System The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The NIMS provides a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices. Incidents typically begin and end locally, and they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In some cases, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency responder disciplines. These cases necessitate coordination across a spectrum of organizations. Communities using NIMS follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural hazards, technological hazards, and human-caused hazards) regardless of size or complexity. Although participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards. The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management. The NIMS program is considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area. National Park Service, North Cascades National Park The National Park Service (NPS) provides wildland and structure fire protection, and conducts wildfire management within the NPS units. These activities are guided by the National Park Service Fire Management Plan. Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities (FEMA, 2015a): • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing. Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protective of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities (National Archives, 2016): NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 196 • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing. All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders. US Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The US Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 700 dams nationwide. It is also responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency’s capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety. The Corps maintains the National Inventory of Dams, which contains information about a dam’s location, size, purpose, type, last inspection and regulatory status (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). US Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management The US Army Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities and programs related to flood risk and flood hazard management: • The Floodplain Management Services program offers 100% federally funded technical services such as development and interpretation of site-specific data related to the extent, duration and frequency of flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk. These may include flood hazard evaluation, flood warning and preparedness, or flood modeling. • For more extensive studies, the Corps of Engineers offers a cost-shared program called Planning Assistance to States and Tribes. Studies under this program generally range from $25,000 to $100,000 with the local jurisdiction providing 50% of the cost. • The Corps of Engineers has several cost-shared programs (typically 65% federal and 35% non- federal) aimed at developing, evaluating and implementing structural and non-structural capital projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed: o The Continuing Authorities Program for smaller-scale projects includes Section 205 for Flood Control, with a $7 million federal limit and Section 14 for Emergency Streambank Protection with a $1.5 million federal limit. These can be implemented without specific authorization from Congress. o Larger scale studies, referred to as General Investigations, and projects for flood risk management, for ecosystem restoration or to address other water resource issues, can be pursued through a specific authorization from Congress and are cost-shared, typically at 65% federal and 35% non-federal. o Watershed management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are cost- shared at 50% federal and 50% non-federal. • The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters. Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance is provided in the flowing categories: NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 197 o Preparedness—The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures. Funding for Corps of Engineers emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state and federal agencies. o Response Activities—Public Law 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by the public sponsor and the sponsor must remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded. Public Law 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding. o Rehabilitation—Under Public Law 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre- disaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20% cost to the eligible non- federal system owner. All systems considered eligible for Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural disaster events where flood control works are damaged. All of these authorities and programs are available to the planning partners to support any intersecting mitigation actions. US Fire Administration There are federal agencies that provide technical support to fire agencies/organizations. For example, the US Fire Administration, which is a part of FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations. US Fish and Wildlife Service The US Fish and Wildlife Service fire management strategy employs prescribed fire to maintain early successional fire-adapted grasslands and other ecological communities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. US Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest The US Forest Service role in wildfire management is primarily focused on National Forest lands. However, Forest Service personnel will respond to wildland and structural fires on adjacent lands through mutual aid agreements when crews and equipment are available. Forest Service fire stations are not staffed outside of fire season. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 198 State Building Code The Washington State Building Code Council adopted the 2018 editions of national model codes, with some amendments (RCW 19.27.074). The Council also adopted changes to the Washington State Energy Code. Washington’s state-developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. The residential code exceeds the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code standards (as amended) for most homes, and the commercial code meets or exceeds standards of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE 90.1-2004). For residential construction covered by ASHRAE 90.1-2007 (buildings with four or more stories), the state code is more stringent. The adoption and enforcement of appropriate building codes is a significant component for hazard mitigation loss avoidance. Using the most up to date and relevant codes reduces risk and increases capability. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Washington’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law (RCW 38.52) establishes parameters to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters, to ensure the administration of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals, to ensure adequate support for search and rescue operations, to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. It achieves the following: • Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state. • Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political subdivisions of the state. • Provides for the rendering of mutual aid among political subdivisions of the state and with other states and for cooperation with the federal government with respect to the carrying out of emergency management functions. • Provides a means of compensating emergency management workers who may suffer any injury or death, who suffer economic harm including personal property damage or loss, or who incur expenses for transportation, telephone or other methods of communication, and the use of personal supplies as a result of participation in emergency management activities. • Provides programs, with intergovernmental cooperation, to educate and train the public to be prepared for emergencies. It is policy under this law that emergency management functions of the state and its political subdivisions be coordinated to the maximum extent with comparable functions of the federal government and agencies of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparation and use may be made of manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with disasters. Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Program The Dam Safety Office (DSO) of the Washington Department of Ecology regulates over 1,000 dams in the state that impound at least 10 acre-feet of water. The DSO has developed dam safety guidelines to provide dam owners, operators, and design engineers with information on activities, procedures, and NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 199 requirements involved in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of dams in Washington. The authority to regulate dams in Washington and to provide for public safety is contained in the following laws: • State Water Code (1917)—RCW 90.03 • Flood Control Act (1935)—RCW 86.16 • Department of Ecology (1970)—RCW 43.21A. Where water projects involve dams and reservoirs with a storage volume of 10 acre-feet or more, the laws provide for the Department of Ecology to conduct engineering review of the construction plans and specifications, to inspect the dams, and to require remedial action as necessary to ensure proper operation, maintenance, and safe performance. The DSO was established within Ecology’s Water Resources Program to carry out these responsibilities. The DSO’s five-year periodic inspection program for dams with high and significant hazard classifications achieves the following purposes (Washington Department of Ecology, 2015a): • Assess the structural integrity and stability of project elements. • Identify obvious defects, especially due to aging. • Assess the stability of the structure under earthquake conditions. • Determine the adequacy of the spillways to accommodate major floods. • Evaluate project operation and maintenance. The inspections, performed by professional engineers from the DSO, consist of the following elements (Washington Department of Ecology, 2015a): • Review and analysis of available data on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dam and its appurtenances • Visual inspection of the dam and its appurtenances • Evaluation of the safety of the dam and its appurtenances, which may include an assessment of hydrological and hydraulic capabilities, structural stabilities, seismic stabilities, and any other condition that could constitute a hazard to the integrity of the structure • Evaluation of the downstream hazard classification • Evaluation of the operation, maintenance and inspection procedures employed by the owner and/or operator • Review of the emergency action plan for the dam, including review or update of the dam-breach inundation map. The DSO provides assurance that impoundment facilities will not pose a threat to lives and property, but dam owners bear primary responsibility for the safety of their structures, through proper design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Department of Ecology Grants Washington’s first flood control maintenance program, passed in 1951, was called the Flood Control Maintenance Program. In 1984, the state Legislature established the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) to assist local jurisdictions in comprehensive planning and flood control maintenance (RCW 86.26; WAC 173-145). This is one of the few state programs in the country that provides grant funding to local governments for flood hazard management planning and implementation. The account NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 200 is funded at $4 million per state biennium, unless modified by the Legislature. Projects include comprehensive flood hazard management planning, maintenance projects, feasibility studies, purchase of flood-prone properties, matches for federal projects, and emergency projects. FCAAP grants for non- emergency projects may not exceed $500,000 per county. Due to funding cuts, applications to this program are currently being accepted only for emergency projects. In 2013, the Legislature authorized $44 million in new funding for integrated projects consistent with Floodplains by Design, an emerging partnership of local, state, federal and private organizations focused on coordinating investment in and strengthening the integrated management of floodplain areas. A similar level of funding was authorized for the 2015-17 and 2017-19 bienniums. The Department of Ecology’s Floods and Floodplain Management Division administers the Floodplains by Design grant program. Ecology awards grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities for collaborative and innovative projects in Washington that support the integration of flood hazard reduction with ecological preservation and restoration. Proposed projects may also address other community needs, such as preservation of agriculture, improvements in water quality, or increased recreational opportunities, provided they are part of a larger strategy to restore ecological functions and reduce flood hazards. Enhanced Mitigation Plan The 2013 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan provides guidance for hazard mitigation throughout Washington (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2013). The plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions for state government to reduce injury and damage from natural hazards. By meeting federal requirements for an enhanced state plan (44 CFR Parts 201.4 and 201.5), the plan allows the state to seek significantly higher funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following presidential declared disasters (20% of federal disaster expenditures vs. 15% with a standard plan). The Grant County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan must be consistent with the Washington State Plan. One major example of this is that the Grant County plan must, at a minimum, address those hazards identified in the state plan as impacting Grant County. Environmental Policy Act The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provides a way to identify possible environmental impacts of governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies, or plans. Information provided during the SEPA review process helps agency decision-makers, applicants, and the public understand how a proposal will affect the environment. This information can be used to change a proposal to reduce likely impacts, or to condition or deny a proposal when adverse environmental impacts are identified. Actions identified in hazard mitigation plans are frequently subject to SEPA review requirements before implementation (Washington Department of Ecology, 2016). Floodplain Management Law Washington’s floodplain management law (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 86.16, implemented through Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-158) states that prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMA’s national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A 1978 major challenge to the law—Maple Leaf Investors Inc. v. Department of Ecology—is cited in legal references to flood hazard management issues. The court upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 201 exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties) authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities directed toward a public purpose. Growth Management Act The 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A) mandates that local jurisdictions adopt land use ordinances to protect the following critical areas: • Wetlands • Critical aquifer recharge areas • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas The Growth Management Act regulates development in these areas, and therefore has the potential to affect hazard vulnerability and exposure at the local level. Planning for natural hazards is an integral element of Washington’s statewide land use planning program under the Growth Management Act. Other related parts of the planning framework include the Shoreline Master Program rules and guidelines, which now provide for the integration of master programs and comprehensive plans. Natural Hazard Mitigation Elements are an optional element under the Growth Management Act. The continuing challenge faced by local officials and state government is to keep a network of coordinated local plans effective in responding to changing conditions and needs of communities. This is particularly true in the case of planning for natural and technological hazards, where communities must balance development pressures with detailed information on the nature and extent of hazards. Washington’s land use program has given its communities and residents a unique opportunity to ensure that natural and technological hazards are addressed in the development and implementation of local comprehensive plans. Hydraulic Code Washington’s Hydraulic Code states that any person or government agency intending to undertake a hydraulic project shall, before commencing work, secure a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife verifying the adequacy of the proposed means for protecting fish (RCW 77.55.021 (1)). The code defines a hydraulic project as work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any salt or freshwaters of the state. Approval is required for projects at or waterward of the ordinary high water line and for projects landward of the ordinary high water line that are immediately adjacent to waters of the state. Land and Water Conservation Fund Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1965 and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the states for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas. The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office administers the program in Washington. Funding comes from a portion of federal revenue from selling and leasing off- shore oil and gas resources. Eligible projects include land acquisition and development or renovation projects, such as natural areas and open space. The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office administers the program (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, 2016a). NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 202 Salmon Recovery Fund In 1999, the Washington State Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The board provides grants to protect or restore salmon habitat. Funded projects may include activities that protect existing, high quality habitat for salmon or that restore degraded habitat to increase overall habitat health and biological productivity. Funding also is available for feasibility assessments to determine future projects and for other salmon related activities. Projects may include the actual habitat used by salmon and the land and water that support ecosystem functions and processes important to salmon (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, 2016b). Shoreline Management Act The 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) was enacted to manage and protect the shorelines of the state by regulating development in the shoreline area. A major goal of the act is to prevent the “inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.” Its jurisdiction includes all water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except: shorelines of statewide significance; streams upstream of where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less; and lakes smaller than 20 acres. Shoreline management activities “implement policies and regulations to help protect water quality for our marine waters, lakes and stream systems; increase protection of lives and property from flood and landslide damage; protect critical habitat as well as fish and wildlife; promote recreational opportunities in shoreline areas.” Often these policies and programs complement or are critical in mitigation programs for communities. Shoreline management programs are local capabilities relevant to mitigation activities. Silver Jackets The Washington Silver Jackets team was formed in 2010 and is a mix of federal and state agencies that work together to address flood risk priorities in the state. Federal agencies include the Corps of Engineers, which facilitates coordination within the group, FEMA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Participating state agencies include the Department of Ecology, the Emergency Management Division, and the Department of Transportation. The team’s projects are intended to address state needs and improve flood risk management throughout the full flood life cycle (Silver Jackets, 2016). Washington Administrative Code 118-30-060(1) Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118-30-060 (1) requires each political subdivision to base its comprehensive emergency management plan on a hazard analysis, and makes the following definitions related to hazards: • Hazards are conditions that can threaten human life as the result of three main factors: o Natural conditions, such as weather and seismic activity o Human interference with natural processes, such as a levee that displaces the natural flow of floodwaters o Human activity and its products, such as homes on a floodplain. • The definitions for hazard, hazard event, hazard identification, and flood hazard include related concepts: o A hazard may be connected to human activity. o Hazards are extreme events. o Hazards generally pose a risk of damage, loss, or harm to people and/or their property. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 203 Watershed Management Act Washington’s Watershed Management Act of 1998 encourages local communities to develop plans for protecting local water resources and habitat. Lawmakers wanted local governments and citizens to develop plans since they know their own regions best. WRIA is an acronym for “Water Resource Inventory Area.” WRIAs are watershed planning areas established by the Department of Ecology. Washington State is divided into 62 WRIAs, each loosely drawn around a natural watershed or group of watersheds. A watershed is an area of land that drains into a common river, lake or the ocean. Local Implementation through Existing Programs Local governments will retain responsibility for implementation of mitigation planning and activities. The Grant County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan and the mechanism for implementation will be accomplished through existing programs now in place within Grant County and fourteen cities and towns; including the GMA (Growth Management Act). Some existing programs which mitigate risks in Grant County are: Land Use Planning Each local government, county, city and town has an active land use management program. Whether supported by full or part time employment, each have addressed land use requirements under State law and developed actions for the Growth Management Act (GMA). It should also be noted that each program is coordinated in concept and activities through multiple capabilities. Cities and towns share and review land management practices through their association of cities and towns. Also, cities, towns and county, as developed in the GMA planning, coordinate proposed development activities through a comprehensive review process. These activities assure compliance to GMA and land use issues and also include mitigation practices. These practices include but are not limited to; (1) incorporating flood plain management in land use zoning and a development review process for compliance, (2) prohibition of construction within identified flood ways and flood way easements and, (3) restriction of building heights within airport runway conical zones. Building Code and Enforcement Building Code used in Grant County is based on the International Building Code (IBC) standards. The State of Washington has adopted the IBC and this is what gives Counties the requirements. These requirements are designed to provide safety for the public and emergency responders alike. It controls such things as occupancy, ceiling height, and building access and egress. It also controls construction in a flood plain which has a requirement that the structure meets the minimum standard of one foot above the flood way. New structures are also built to seismic hazard standards which may include seismic hold- downs on the structure or shear panels to provide protection from ground movement. In order to be in compliance, all new construction must be built to code. The Building Department inspects upgrades to existing structures and new construction for compliance. Sub-areas among the Building Code are Fire Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, and Residential Code. The Fire Code used is part of the Washington State Code that was developed in 1927. Fire and other codes are also designed to provide protection to the public. County Roads The Grant County Public Works Department follows the current structural design standards of the county for the development of new roads and other transportation structures such as bridges and culverts. The Road Engineer prepares these design standards which help to ensure public safety and compliance with sound engineering practices. These are implemented through their appropriate NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 204 guidelines including new construction and upgrades to existing structures to meeting current design standards. These design standards are provided in Resolution Number 85-52-CC. Construction of new structures shall be in compliance with the current edition of the Washington State Standard Specifications of Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. Plans and special provisions are submitted to the County Road Engineer, who inspects all road construction projects. Any construction found to be deficient must be brought into compliance before final approval is given. Public Health Programs The Grant County Health District provides services for Environmental and Personal Health. Environmental Health Programs include: Chemical/Physical Hazards, Drinking Water and, Food Protection Programs. Personal Health Programs include: Immunization Services, Communicable Disease and, Child Care Programs among others. The Health District also provides Public Health Advisories which the Health Officer implements. The Health District provides public information through health fairs, attending public meetings and engaging in community outreach. Special purpose districts also apply these same principles and/or participate in these programs. Many also have operational programs which are reviewed for operational planning and budgets annually. To aid in the implementation, Grant County Emergency Management participates in land use management reviews for new projects; contacting new industry and businesses developing within the county or cities and towns. The review process provides a proactive approach to prompt developers to refer to codes, rules, and plans which attempt to control certain activities when proposed. These kinds of controls are for the most part understood by the public which allows for a simple and acceptable implementation process. Another program process available is the capital facilities plan of specific functions and services adopted by jurisdictions in specific detail not covered in the comprehensive plan. This marks those major infrastructure developments or facilities which the entity has identified as needing within a six-, ten-, or twenty-year plan. When the capital facilities plans are updated, jurisdictions will consider the impact of the mitigation initiatives they chose for this plan and their incorporation. Other applicable plans/programs include: • Grant County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan • Grant County Comprehensive Plan • Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 205 APPENDIX D EXAMPLE PROGRESS REPORT Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Annual Progress Report Reporting Period: (Insert reporting period) Summary Overview of the Plan’s Progress: The performance period for the Hazard Mitigation Plan became effective on with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The initial performance period for this plan will be 5 years, with an anticipated update to the plan to occur before . As of the reporting period, the following overall progress can be reported: • Out of initiatives, ( %) reported ongoing action toward completion. • Out of initiatives, ( %) were reported as being complete. • Out of initiatives, ( %) reported no action taken. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action plan identified in the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the Hazard Mitigation Plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities of the partner jurisdictions. This report discusses the following: • Natural hazard events that have occurred within the last year • Changes in risk exposure within the planning area (all of Grant County) • Mitigation success stories • Review of the action plan • Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation • Recommendations for changes/enhancement. Natural Hazard Events within the Planning Area: During the reporting period, there were natural hazard events in the planning area that had a measurable impact on people or property. A summary of these events is as follows: • _________ • _________ • _________ Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area: (Insert brief overview of any natural hazard event in the planning area that changed the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the hazards addressed in the hazard mitigation plan) Mitigation Success Stories: (Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the reporting period) Review of the Action Plan: Table 2 reviews the action plan, reporting the status of each initiative. Reviewers of this report should refer to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for more detailed descriptions of each initiative and the prioritization process. NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 206 Address the following in the “status” column of the following table: • Was any element of the initiative carried out during the reporting period? • If no action was completed, why? • Is the timeline for implementation for the initiative still appropriate? • If the initiative was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan? Table 2. Action Plan Matrix. Action Taken? (Yes or No) Timeline Priority Status (X, O , ✓) Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Completion status legend: ✓ = Project Completed O = Action ongoing toward completion X = No progress at this time NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 207 Changes That May Impact Implementation of the Plan: (Insert brief overview of any significant changes in the planning area that would have a profound impact on the implementation of the plan. Specify any changes in technical, regulatory and financial capabilities identified during the plan’s development) Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements: Based on the review of this report by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the following recommendations will be noted for future updates or revisions to the plan: • ________ • ________ • ________ • ________ • ________ • ________ Public Review Notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to: Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management 35 C Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823 509.762.1462 NOVEMBER 8, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1 208 APPENDIX E FEMA APPROVAL LETTER AND PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING PARTNERS To Be Provided with Final Plan Release