3971 Vol 2 Grant_County_HMP_2023_FinalDraftforAdoption_Vol2GRANT COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
2023
GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES
November 8, 2023
Grant County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management
35 C Street NW
Ephrata, WA
98823
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Planning Partner Expectations ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Linkage Procedures ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 ANNEX PREPARATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Templates ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Tool Kit ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Workshop ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 MITIGATION ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1 Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Information Reviewed to Develop Action Plan ........................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Prioritization .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.4.3 Benefit/Cost Review ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.4 Analysis of Mitigation Actions ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANS .................................................................................................. 7
1.6 FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 UNINCORPORATED GRANT COUNTY ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ........................................................................................................ 9
2.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE........................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Location and Features .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 History .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Governing Body Format ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Population ................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2 Development ............................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 11
2.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 18
2.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration .......................................................................................................... 19
2.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 19
2.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................... 19
2.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................ 20
REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Other Noted Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................................ 20
2.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS .................................................................................................................. 20
2.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................... 21
2.9 PUBLIC OUTREACH .......................................................................................................................................... 23
2.10 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX ................................................................................................... 23
3.0 TOWN OF HARTLINE ................................................................................................................................ 35
3.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... 35
3.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE...................................................................................................................................... 35
3.2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................................................ 35
3.2.2 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.2.3 Governing Body Format ............................................................................................................................. 36
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
ii
3.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
3.3.1 Population .................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.3.2 Development .............................................................................................................................................. 36
3.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 37
3.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 43
3.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................... 43
3.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration .......................................................................................................... 43
3.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 43
3.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................... 44
3.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................... 44
3.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................ 44
3.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS .................................................................................................................. 45
3.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................... 45
3.9 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................... 48
4.0 CITY OF MOSES LAKE ............................................................................................................................... 55
4.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... 55
4.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE...................................................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.2.2 History ........................................................................................................................................................ 56
4.2.3. Governing Body Format ............................................................................................................................ 56
4.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 56
4.3.1 Population .................................................................................................................................................. 56
4.3.2 Development .............................................................................................................................................. 56
4.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 57
4.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 64
4.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................... 64
4.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration .......................................................................................................... 64
4.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 65
4.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................... 65
4.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................... 66
4.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................ 67
Repetitive Loss Properties ................................................................................................................................... 67
Other Noted Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................................ 67
4.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS .................................................................................................................. 67
4.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................... 68
4.9 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................... 70
5.0 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10, DBA ROYAL SLOPE FIRE RESCUE AND EMS ........................................ 78
5.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... 78
5.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE...................................................................................................................................... 78
5.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 78
5.2.2 Service Area ................................................................................................................................................ 79
5.2.3 Assets ......................................................................................................................................................... 79
5.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 79
5.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 80
5.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 83
5.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................... 83
5.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration .......................................................................................................... 83
5.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 84
5.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................... 84
5.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................... 84
5.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................ 85
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
iii
5.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS .................................................................................................................. 85
5.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................... 85
5.9 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................... 86
6.0 PORT OF ROYAL SLOPE ............................................................................................................................ 87
6.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... 87
6.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE...................................................................................................................................... 87
6.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 87
6.2.2 Service Area ................................................................................................................................................ 87
6.2.3 Assets ......................................................................................................................................................... 88
6.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 88
6.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 88
6.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 92
6.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................... 92
6.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration .......................................................................................................... 92
6.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 93
6.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................... 93
6.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................... 93
6.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................ 94
6.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS .................................................................................................................. 94
6.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................... 94
6.9 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................... 96
7.0 GRANT COUNTY PORT DISTRICT #1, PORT OF QUINCY ............................................................................ 97
7.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM ...................................................................................................... 97
7.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE...................................................................................................................................... 97
7.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 97
7.2.2 Service Area ................................................................................................................................................ 97
7.2.3 Assets ......................................................................................................................................................... 97
7.3 CURRENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 98
7.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 98
7.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 102
7.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................. 102
7.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration ........................................................................................................ 102
7.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 102
7.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................. 102
7.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................. 103
7.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities .......................................................................................................... 103
7.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS ................................................................................................................ 103
7.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 104
7.10 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................. 105
8.0 GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #1, SAMARITAN HEALTHCARE ......................................... 106
8.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM .................................................................................................... 106
8.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE.................................................................................................................................... 106
8.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 106
8.2.2 Service Area .............................................................................................................................................. 106
8.2.3 Assets ....................................................................................................................................................... 107
8.3 CURRENT TRENDS ......................................................................................................................................... 107
8.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................ 107
8.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 111
8.5.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................................. 111
8.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration ........................................................................................................ 111
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
iv
8.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 112
8.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................. 112
8.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................. 112
8.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities .......................................................................................................... 113
8.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS ................................................................................................................ 113
8.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 113
8.9 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX .................................................................................................. 114
Appendix A – Planning Partner Expectations
Appendix B – Linkage Procedures
Appendix C – Municipal Template and Instructions
Appendix D – District Template and Instructions
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard
mitigation. All participating jurisdictions must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (44 CFR):
“Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as
each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.”
(Section 201.6(a)(4)).
For the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a planning partnership was formed to leverage
resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act for as many eligible local
governments as possible. The Disaster Mitigation Act defines a local government as follows:
“Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government
entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal
organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated
town or village, or other public entity.”
Two types of planning partners participated in this process for the Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update, with distinct needs and capabilities:
• Incorporated municipalities (six cities and Grant County)
• Special purpose districts (seven districts throughout the county).
Each participating planning partner prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. These annexes, as
well as information on the process by which they were created, are contained in this volume.
1.2 The Planning Partnership
1.2.1 Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent
The planning team solicited the participation of all eligible municipalities and special purpose districts at
the outset of this project. A kickoff meeting was held on November 16, 2021 to identify potential
stakeholders and planning partners for this process. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the
planning process to jurisdictions in the County that could have a stake in the outcome of the planning
effort. All eligible local governments in the planning area were invited to attend. The goals of the
meeting were as follows:
• Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act.
• Review the past Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan and planning partnership
• Outline the work plan for this hazard mitigation plan.
• Describe the benefits of multi-jurisdictional planning.
• Outline planning partner expectations.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
2
• Solicit planning partners.
• Solicit volunteers/recommendations for the steering committee.
Local governments wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a
“letter of intent to participate” that agreed to the planning partner expectations (see Appendix A) and
designated a point of contact for their jurisdiction. In all, the planning team received formal
commitment from 14 planning partners in addition to the County.
A map showing the location of participating special purpose districts is provided at the end of this
introduction. Maps included in the individual annexes of participating cities show risk assessment results
for each of those entities. Countywide risk assessment maps for the entire planning area defined for this
plan are provided in the risk assessment chapters of Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan.
1.2.2 Planning Partner Expectations
The planning team developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were provided
and discussed at the kickoff meeting (see Appendix A for details):
• Complete a “letter of intent to participate.”
• Designate a lead point of contact for this effort.
• Support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee.
• Provide support required to implement the public involvement strategy.
• Participate in the process through opportunities such as:
o Steering Committee meetings
o Public meetings or open houses
o Workshops and planning partner specific training sessions
o Public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
• Attend the mandatory jurisdictional annex workshop.
• Complete the jurisdictional annex.
• Perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans and ordinances specific to hazards.
• Review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to the jurisdiction.
• Review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in Volume 1 will meet the
needs of the jurisdiction.
• Create an action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be
financed, and when it is estimated to occur.
• Formally adopt the hazard mitigation plan.
By adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance
protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped
from the partnership by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of this plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
3
1.2.3 Linkage Procedures
Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this multi-jurisdictional plan may
comply with Disaster Mitigation Act requirements by linking to this plan following procedures outlined
in Appendix B.
1.3 Annex Preparation Process
1.3.1 Templates
Templates were created to help the planning partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes.
Separate templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions participating in this plan. The
templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR would be, based on the partners’
capabilities and mode of operation. Separate templates were available for partners updating a previous
hazard mitigation plan and those developing a first-time hazard mitigation plan. The templates were set
up to lead all partner through steps to generate Disaster Mitigation Act-required elements specific to
their jurisdictions. The templates and their instructions are included in Appendix C of this volume.
1.3.2 Tool Kit
Each planning partner was provided with a tool kit to assist in completing the annex template and
developing an action plan. The tool kits contained the following:
• The 2013 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan
• A catalog of mitigation best practices and adaptive capacity
• The guiding principle, goals and objectives developed for the update to the plan
• Information on the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant program
• Information on past hazard events that have impacted the planning area
• County-wide and jurisdiction-specific maps for hazards of concern
• The risk assessment results developed for this plan
• Information on climate change and expected impacts in the planning area
• Jurisdiction-specific annex templates, with instructions for completing them
• FEMA guidance on plan integration
• The results of a public survey conducted as part of the public involvement strategy
• A copy of the presentation that was given at the workshop sessions.
1.3.3 Workshop
All partners were required to participate in a technical assistance workshop, where key elements of the
template were discussed, and the templates were subsequently completed by a designated point of
contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The workshop, held during the July 27,
2022 steering committee meeting and attended by at least one representative from each planning
partner, addressed the following topics:
• Overview of Phase 3 of the jurisdictional annex process
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
4
• The templates and the tool kit
• Natural events history
• Jurisdiction-specific issues
• Risk ranking
• Status of prior actions
• Developing your action plan
• Cost/benefit review
• Prioritization protocol
• Next steps
1.4 Mitigation Action Plan Development
1.4.1 Risk Ranking
In the risk-ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to review the ranked risk specifically for its
jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population and/or facilities. Municipalities based this ranking on
probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special
purpose districts based this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their
constituency, their vital facilities and the facilities’ functionality after an event. The methodology
followed that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1. The objectives of this
exercise were to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk assessment as a tool to support
other planning and hazard mitigation processes and to help prioritize types of mitigation actions that
should be considered. Hazards that were ranked as “high” and “medium” for each jurisdiction as a result
of this exercise were considered to be priorities for identifying mitigation actions, although jurisdictions
also identified actions to mitigate “low” ranked hazards, as appropriate.
1.4.2 Information Reviewed to Develop Action Plan
The tool kits were used during the workshops and in follow-up work conducted by the planning
partners. A large portion of the workshop focused on how the tool kit should be used to develop the
mitigation action plan. Planning partners were specifically asked to review the following to assist in the
identification of actions:
• The Jurisdiction’s Capability Assessment—Reviewed to identify capabilities that the
jurisdiction does not currently have but should consider pursuing or capabilities that should
be revisited and updated to include best available information; also reviewed to determine
how existing capabilities can be leveraged to increase or improve hazard mitigation in the
jurisdiction.
• The Jurisdiction’s National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Table—Reviewed to identify
opportunities to increase floodplain management capabilities.
• The Jurisdiction’s Review of Its Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change—Reviewed to identify
ways to leverage or continue to improve existing capacities and to improve understanding of
other capacities.
• The Jurisdiction’s Identified Opportunities for Future Integration—Reviewed to identify
specific integration actions to be included in the mitigation strategy.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
5
• Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities—Reviewed to identify actions that will help reduce known
vulnerabilities.
• The Mitigation Best Practices Catalog—Reviewed to identify actions that the jurisdiction
should consider including in its action plan.
• Public Input—Reviewed to identify potential actions and community priorities.
1.4.2 Prioritization
44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Sections 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). The
planning team and steering committee developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that
meets the needs of the partnership and the requirements of 44 CFR. All identified actions were
prioritized in two categories—implementation and grant pursuit—as defined by the following criteria:
Implementation priority:
a. 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).
b. 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.
c. 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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility
requirements.
These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes
to a parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium
priority because of the uncertainty of a funding source but be changed to high priority once a funding
source has been identified. The 2013 plan used the same method of prioritization for implementation
priority as was used in this plan update. The grant pursuit priority is a newly added prioritization
schedule. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually
through the plan maintenance strategy.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
6
1.4.3 Benefit/Cost Review
44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed
actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was
qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance grant program. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each
project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and
low) to benefits and costs as follows:
Benefit ratings:
a. High—The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life
and property.
b. Medium—The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life
and property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
c. Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short-term.
Cost ratings:
a. High—Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action;
implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative source (for
example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
b. Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-
apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have
to be spread over multiple years.
c. Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be
part of an existing, ongoing program.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over
medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA’s Hazard
Mitigation Assistance program. This program requires detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the
application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation.
The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking financial
assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define
“benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan.
1.4.4 Analysis of Mitigation Actions
All planning partners reviewed their recommended actions to classify each action based on the hazard it
addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. 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.
• 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.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
7
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards
and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard
information centers, and school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the
functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a
hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of
essential facilities.
• Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of
a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
• Climate Resilient—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, such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• 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.
These categories include categories identified in the Community Rating System (CRS) 2017 CRS
Coordinators Manual (OMB No. 1660-0022, Figure 510-4). The CRS categories expand on the four
categories in FEMA’s 2013 Local Mitigation Handbook. They provide a more comprehensive range of
options, thus increasing integration opportunities.
1.5 Compatibility with Previous Approved Plans
The six municipal partners who participated in this plan were previously covered under the 2013 Grant
County Multi-Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, which has expired. The special-
purpose-district partners had no previous coverage. -1 lists all the partners and the role this multi-
jurisdictional plan will play in achieving compliance.
1.6 Final Coverage Under the Plan
Only half of the planning partners that submitted letters of intent to participate fully met the
participation requirements for this update. Table 1-1 lists the jurisdictions that submitted letters of
intent and their ultimate status in this plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
8
Table 1-1. Planning Partnership.
Covered by
2013 Plan?
Letter of
Intent Date
Attended
Workshop?
Completed
Template?
Covered by this Hazard
Mitigation Plan?
Grant County Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes
City of Ephrata No 11/16/2021 Yes No No
Town of Hartline No 11/22/2021 Yes Yes Yes
City of Mattawa No 12/16/2021 No No No
City of Moses Lake Yes 11/18/2021 Yes Yes Yes
City of Warden Yes 12/03/2021 No No No
Town of Wilson Creek No 12/13/2021 No No No
DBA Royal Slope Fire Rescue No 11/15/2021 No Yes Yes
Grant County Fire District #8 No 12/03/2021 No No No
Port of Mattawa No 12/16/2021 No No No
Port of Moses Lake No 11/16/2021 Yes No No
Port of Quincy No 12/06/2021 Yes Yes Yes
Port of Royal Slope No 12/16/2021 Yes Yes Yes
Samaritan Health Care No 12/29/2021 No Yes Yes
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
9
2.0 UNINCORPORATED GRANT COUNTY
2.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Kyle Foreman, Emergency Management Specialist/PIO
35 C Street NW
Ephrata, WA 98823
Telephone: (509) 760-3713
e-mail Address: kforeman@grantcountywa.gov
Mireya Garcia, Emergency Management
Specialist
35 C Street NW
Ephrata, WA 98823
Telephone: 509-906-6831
e-mail Address:
mxgarcia@grantcountywa.gov
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Sam Castro Public Works Director
Sam Dart Asst. Public Works Director
Kyle Foreman Emergency Management Specialist/PIO
Mireya Garcia Emergency Management Specialist
2.2 Jurisdiction Profile
2.2.1 Location and Features
Grant County is in central Washington State.
Grant County, Washington is bordered by Lincoln County, Yakima County, Douglas County, Benton
County, Kittitas County, Adams County, Okanogan County, and Franklin County. Grant County
encompasses 2,679 square miles. Grant County ranks 4th in size among Washington’s 39 counties.
2.2.2 History
Grant County was incorporated on February 24, 1909. Settlers first came to Grant County in the mid to
late 1800s with plans of raising livestock, but the area was somewhat desolate. Washington State
Legislature officially created the county in 1909, 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 the Grand Coulee Dam was approved in 1933. The Grand Coulee Dam is the
cornerstone of the Columbia Basin Project, a multipurpose project that 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 (Wikipedia, 2013).
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
10
2.2.3 Governing Body Format
A board of three elected officials, serving a four-year term, governs Grant County. The Board of County
Commissioners assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan. The Grant County Sheriff’s Office
will oversee its implementation.
2.3 Current Trends
2.3.1 Population
According to the 2021 US Census, the population of Grant County as of July 2021 was 100,297. Since
2020, the population has grown at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent.
2.3.2 Development
The County and its cities have adopted comprehensive plans that govern land use decisions and
policymaking in 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 risks associated with natural hazards in Grant County.
Grant County has not experienced any significant change in development in hazard-prone areas over the
last several years. Any development in a flood hazard area has been limited to single existing lot
development and requires compliance with the County’s flood damage prevention and critical areas
ordinances, otherwise the construction is not allowed. The areas of unincorporated Grant County that
classify as flood hazard areas are not exceptionally suitable to development given the fact that these
areas typically follow steep-banked ravines or drainages that render the areas impractical for
development. Some of these areas are under State or Federal ownership and thus not susceptible to
development pressure. Grant County Code 24.16 “Flood Damage Prevention” establishes the County
Planning Department’s responsibility to ensure that proposed development complies with these
standards. Each building permit and land use entitlement application is reviewed for flood zone or flood
way issues using the FEMA FIRMs and where an issue is present, the applicant must resolve the flood
issues prior to issuance of the permit. As required by the Growth Management Act, the County must
keep its development regulations updated as necessary to comply with State law. The County works
closes with the Washington State Department of Ecology to maintain the Grant County Code 24.16 to
ensure it is current. An additional measure of protection coming in 2014 is the updated Shoreline
Master Program, which will include additional flood prevention measures beyond Grant County Code
24.16. Grant County will maintain these activities and continue its compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Building Code used in Grant County is based on the International Building Code (IBC) standards. New
structures are built to seismic hazard standards that 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 constructions for compliance. Sub-areas among the Building Code are Fire Code, Plumbing
Code, Mechanical Code, and Residential Code.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
11
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.
Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of
permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking
previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a
hazard within a community. Table 2-2 summarizes development trends in the performance period since
the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 2-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends.
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
No
If yes, give the estimated area annexed and
estimated number of parcels or structures.
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? No
If yes, describe land areas and dominant uses.
If yes, who currently has permitting authority
over these areas?
Are any areas targeted for development or major redevelopment in the next five years? Yes
If yes, briefly describe, including whether any
of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
Mae Valley area west of Moses Lake; ASPI Group development
in Mae Valley; areas around the Port of Moses Lake
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Single Family 236 272 246 214 320
Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0
Other 530 631 583 510 613
Total 766 903 829 724 933
Provide the number of new-construction
permits for each hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where development
has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: 5
• Landslide: 0
• High Liquefaction Areas: 0
• Wildfire Risk Areas: Unknown (No WUIC adopted)
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
OFM estimates that there is sufficient buildable land in the
unincorporated areas of the county to provide approximately
7,815 new dwelling units, which greatly exceeds the 3,796
dwelling units required through year 2038 (projected growth
numbers)
2.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
12
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 2-3.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 2-4.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 2-5.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 2-6.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 2-7.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 2-8.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 2-9.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 2-10.
Table 2-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, and Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: International Building Code
Zoning Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Title 23, 24, and 25
Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Title 22 of Grant County Code
Stormwater Management No No No No
Comment:
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No Yes
Comment: Under development by Community Development for enactment in 2023
Real Estate Disclosure No Yes Yes No
Comment:
Growth Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Grant County Comprehensive Plan (post GMA) originally adopted in 1999, subsequent mandatory update
completed in 2006 with most recent update in June 2018.
Site Plan Review Yes No No No
Comment: Embedded in Zoning Code
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Critical Areas Ordinance and Cultural Resources in Chapter 24.08 UDC
Flood Damage Prevention Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Administered by Development Services
Emergency Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
13
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Climate Change Yes No No Yes
Comment: Unified Development Code
Other N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment:
Planning Documents
Comprehensive Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: See “Growth Management” above
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No Yes Yes
How often is the
plan updated?
Every 6-years: Next update is 2023
Comment: Embedded in Comprehensive Plan
Disaster Debris Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Floodplain or Watershed Plan Noa No No No
Comment:
Stormwater Plan No No No No
Comment: Not currently required
Urban Water Management Plan No No No No
Comment: Not currently required
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes Yes No No
Comment: Through Conservation District
Economic Development Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Embedded in Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline Management Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Shoreline Management Plan currently under update
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes Yes No Yes
Comment:
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Climate Action Plan No No No No
Comment:
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan due for update in 2023
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Under review
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No No
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No No
Comment:
Public Health Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Managed by Grant County Health District
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
14
Table 2-4. Development and Permitting Capability.
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
If no, who does? If yes, which department? Development Services
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard
area?
Yes
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes
Table 2-5. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Unknown
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Unknown
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Soon
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
15
Table 2-6. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Chris Young Planning Director, Dave Bren County Engineer
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Public Works – County Engineer
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Public Works – County Engineer
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Public Works Director
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Planning, Assessor’s Office, and Public Works
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management
Grant writers Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Emergency Management, Public Works Director and Asst. Director Enter
Other
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 2-7. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Post hazards on County Web pages Enter Response
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Nixle
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Nixle, WEA and EAS
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
16
Table 2-8. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance.
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Development Services
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Development Services
Director
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last
amended?
Ordinance Number or Code Reference: GCC 14.02 Flood Damage and Prevention
2022
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum
requirements?
Exceeds
If exceeds, in what ways?
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
2022
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that
need to be addressed?
No
If so, state what they are.
Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? No
If so, state what they are.
Does your jurisdiction have the latest effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps
adopted?
Yes
If no, state why. If yes, what is the effective date? February 18, 2009
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your
jurisdiction?
Yes
If no, state why.
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to
support its floodplain management program?
Yes
If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? No
If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS
Classification?
If no, is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? Unsure
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 25
What is the insurance in force? $6,000,000
What is the premium in force? $17,268
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
17
Criterion Response
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 2
How many claims are still open or were closed without payment? 0
What were the total payments
for losses?
$72,000
Description of how the City implements the substantial improvement/substantial damage provisions of their
floodplain management ordinance
Describe: After an event, the County’s Development Services Director will assemble a team of inspectors to
perform a rapid assessment of structures within the floodplain of the affected areas to assess which structures
may have been damaged. If the event was flooding, this team would have also conducted a windshield survey
during the flood event to document structures affected by flooding. All damaged structures will be required to
obtain a flood permit for the proposed repairs and provide a contractor’s cost estimate. The cost will be
compared to the market value of the structure prior to damage, starting with the assessed improvement value, if
available, or an appraised value secured by the landowner. If the cost to repair the structure is greater than 50%
of the structure value, the structure will need to be brought into compliance with current floodplain regulations.
a. According to FEMA statistics as of May 2022
Table 2-9. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code N/A N/A
DUNS # N/A N/A
Community Rating System No N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No N/A
Public Protection Yes N/A
Storm Ready Yes N/A
Firewise No N/A
Table 2-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Medium
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Medium
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
18
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments High
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Unsure
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
2.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant
information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such
integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.
Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress
reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of
hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
19
2.5.1 Existing Integration
Current County staff are unsure of how the plan may have been integrated into other planning efforts
over the past 10 years.
2.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Grant County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
• Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
• Grant County Codes (zoning, building, subdivision, stormwater, floodplain)
• Disaster Recovery Plans
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
2.6 Risk Assessment
2.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 2-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 2-11. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not available
Flood 146 March 1963 Not available
Drought 3037 March 1977 Not available
Volcano 623 May 1980 Not available
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996-February 1997 Not available
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 Not available
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 Not available
Wildfire (Buckshot) 5257 July 2018 Not available
Wildfire (Grass Valley Fire) 5271 Date Not available
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
20
2.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 2-12 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property, and the economy. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 2-12. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Wildfire 36 High
2 Earthquake 32 Medium
3 Severe Storms 24 Medium
4 Flooding 18 Medium
5 Drought 9 Low
6 Landslide 0 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
8 Volcano 0 Low
2.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for this jurisdiction. Available
jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been
mitigated: 0
Other Noted Vulnerabilities
The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk
assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Our communities are all concerned about wildfire risk.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
2.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 2-13 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
21
Table 2-13. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed: Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
GCP-MH1: Grant County Planning Department ✓
Comment: Protect aquifers – Removed due to other projects taking priority.
GCPW-MH1: Grant County Public Works Department ✓
Comment: Saddle Mountain Road Project – Removed due to other projects taking priority.
GCSO-MH1: Grant County Sheriff’s Office ✓
Comment: Interoperable communications
GCEM-MH1: Grant County Sheriff’s Emergency Management ✓
Comment: Regional LEPC Support – Project completed
GCEM-MH3: Grant County Sheriff’s Emergency Management ✓ CW-7
Comment: Public education for hazard awareness
GCEM-MH4: Grant County Sheriff’s Emergency Management ✓ GC-2
Comment: Encourage land use planning for hazardous materials incidents
GCEM-MH2: Grant County Sheriff’s Emergency Management ✓
Comment: Emergency worker program – Removed due to lack of interest from volunteers.
2.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 2-14 lists the identified actions, which make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this
jurisdiction. Table 2-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 2-16 summarizes the mitigation
actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.
Table 2-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action GC-1: Investigate the availability of federal, state, or local grant funding to support acquisition of mobile
power generators to supply emergency power during emergency conditions.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
Existing 1-8 GCSO GC Public
Works
High HMGP Medium-
term
Action GC-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use
decisions in the community.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
1-8 Grant County
Community
Development
None Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
22
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action GC-3— Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Reduce risk of wildfire hazards and damage through
implementation of wildfire prevention and mitigation activities
Hazards
Mitigated:
Wildfire
New and
Existing
1 Grant County
Sheriff’s EM
Grant County
Fire Agencies
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
term
Action GC-4—Enhance outreach and education programs aimed at mitigating all hazards and reducing or
preventing the exposure of citizens, public agencies, private property owners, and businesses to natural hazards
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire
New and
Existing
1 Grant County
Sheriff’s EM
Grant County
Fire Agencies
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Action GC-5— Complete mitigation projects relating to wildfire fuel reduction
Hazards
Mitigated:
Wildfire
Existing 1 Grant County
Sheriff’s EM
Grant County
Fire Agencies
High FEMA BRIC or
HMGP grant funds
Medium-
term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Acronyms used here are defined at the beginning of this volume.
Table 2-15. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
GC-1 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
GC-2 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
GC-3 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
GC-4 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
GC-5 1 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
23
Table 2-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wildfire GC-2,GC-3,
GC-5
GC-1,GC-2,
GC-3, GC-5
GC-3, GC-4 GC-2, GC-3,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2,GC-3, GC-
5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-3,
GC-5
GC-2,GC-3,
GC-5
GC-3, GC-5
Medium-Risk Hazards
Earthquake GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Severe Storm GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Flooding GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Low-Risk Hazards
Drought GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Landslide GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Dam Failure GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
Volcano GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-4, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2,
GC-5
GC-1, GC-
2, GC-5
GC-1, GC-2 GC-1, GC-2
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
2.9 Public Outreach
Table 2-17 lists public outreach activities for this jurisdiction.
Table 2-17. Local Public Outreach.
2.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
Local Outreach Activity Date Number of People
Involved
National Night Out Quincy 08/01/22 200
National Night Out Moses Lake 08/02/22 200
Grant County Fair 08/15/22-08/20/22 10,000
Fire Prevention Week Open House Quincy 10/22/222 200
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
24
• Grant County Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability
assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• 2013 Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
25
Figure 2-1. Grant County Critical Facilities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
26
Figure 2-2. Grant County Flood Hazards.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
27
Figure 2-3. Grant County Landslides.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
28
Figure 2-4. Grant County Liquefaction.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
29
Figure 2-5. Grant County NEHRP Soils.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
30
Figure 2-6. Grant County 100-Year Earthquake Probabilistic.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
31
Figure 2-7. Grant County 500-Year Earthquake Probabilistic.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
32
Figure 2-8. Grant County Saddle Mountain.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
33
Figure 2-9. Grant County Wildfire.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
34
Figure 2-10. Grant Tier 2 Facilities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
35
3.0 TOWN OF HARTLINE
3.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Andrew Allsbrook, Mayor
941 Willard Street
Hartline, WA 99135
Telephone: (757) 621-3903
e-mail Address: Drew.Allsbrook@townofhartline.com
Tina Kihn Thomas, Clerk/Treasurer
941 Willard Street
Hartline, WA 99135
Telephone: (509) 639-2606
e-mail Address: Tina.Thomas@townofhartline.com
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Matthew Baergen Mayor Pro Tem/Councilmember
David Philp Councilmember
Goldye Moyer Councilmember
Jacob Johnson Councilmember
3.2 Jurisdiction Profile
3.2.1 Location and Features
Hartline is in the northwest portion of Grant County near the southern end of Banks Lake. It is
approximately eight miles northeast of Coulee City along Highway 2.
The current boundaries generally extend north of Highway 2 to Hill Street and east-west from Range
Street to just west of May Street, encompassing an area of 0.33 square miles.
Hartline is the home of the historic Hartline High School and the ACH school district baseball and softball
fields. Splitting the town in half north/south are the well-known grain silos and railroad this farming
community co-ops with neighboring towns.
3.2.2 History
Hartline was incorporated in March of 1907. Hartline was originally part of Douglas County but in 1909,
Douglas County split with one part being called Grant County. It is due to the fertile wheatland soil that
Hartline was able to survive and flourish even prior to its incorporation. At one point, there were over
300 people living in Hartline. There were several stores, including lumber yards, general stores,
blacksmith shops, a meat market, and even an undertaker’s office. Hartline prospered early as it was
one of the early grain shipping points in the Big Bend Country. Unfortunately, the Great Depression and,
in later years, a fire caused people to leave the area. Hartline’s population seemed to have never
recovered from these disastrous events.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
36
3.2.3 Governing Body Format
The Town of Hartline is governed by a five-member council. There is one town employee who is both
clerk/treasurer and town maintenance. There are no definable departments.
The Town Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; Town Mayor will oversee its
implementation.
3.3 Current Trends
3.3.1 Population
According to www.census.gov, the population of Hartline as of October 2020 was 180. Since 2010, the
population has grown at an average annual rate of 1.9 percent.
3.3.2 Development
Anticipated future development is very low. Initial development and planning did not leave much room
for extensive growth within the corporate limits.
Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of
permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking
previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a
hazard within a community. Table 3-2 summarizes development trends in the performance period since
the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 3-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends.
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
No
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? No
Are any areas targeted for development or major redevelopment in the next five years? No
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Single Family 1
Multi-Family
Other 1 1
Total 1 1 1
Provide the number of new-construction
permits for each hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where development
has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: 0
• Landslide: 0
• High Liquefaction Areas: 0
• Wildfire Risk Areas: 3
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
37
Criterion Response
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
Hartline has developed at a medium to low density. The town
has multiple vacant or underdeveloped lots which could support
additional low density growth if there were a demand.
3.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 3-3.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 3-4.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3-5.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 3-6.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 3-7.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 3-8.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 3-9.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 3-10.
Table 3-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, and Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 213 adopted Nov 1, 2010. Adopts state code
Zoning Code Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 247 adopted June 11, 2018. Contains information concerning our Unified Development Code
Subdivisions No No No No
Comment:
Stormwater Management No No No Yes
Comment:
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No Yes
Comment:
Real Estate Disclosure No No No No
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
38
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 247 adopted June 11, 2018
Site Plan Review No No No No
Comment:
Environmental Protection Yes No No Yes
Comment: Ordinance 247 adopted June 11, 2018
Flood Damage Prevention Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 210 adopted January 12, 2009
Emergency Management No No No Yes
Comment:
Climate Change No No No Yes
Comment:
Other No No No No
Comment:
Planning Documents
Comprehensive Plan Yes No No No
Comment:
Capital Improvement Plan No No No No
How often is the plan updated?
Comment:
Disaster Debris Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Floodplain or Watershed Plan No No No No
Comment:
Stormwater Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Urban Water Management Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Town is currently working on the Small Water Management Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Ordinance 247 adopted June 11, 2018
Economic Development Plan No No No No
Comment:
Shoreline Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Community Wildfire Protection Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Climate Action Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
39
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
No No No Yes
Comment:
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Public Health Plan No No No No
Comment:
Other No No No No
Comment:
Table 3-4. Development and Permitting Capability.
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
If no, who does? If yes, which department? Town Clerk
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard
area?
No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? No
Table 3-5. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes
If yes, specify: Only utility is water
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other No
If yes, specify:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
40
Table 3-6. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Contract with Century West Engineering
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Contract with Century West Engineering
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Contract with Century West Engineering
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position: Previously used Gray and Osborn for town survey. Will receive recommendations
from Century West
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No
If Yes, Department/Position: Will consult with Survey Company on a as needed basis
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Grant writers Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Contract with Century West Engineering
Other No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 3-7. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
If yes, briefly describe:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
41
Table 3-8. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance.
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Town Clerk
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Town Clerk
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? No
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? January 12, 2009
Ordinance Number or Code Reference: 210
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets
If exceeds, in what ways?
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
Unknown
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to
be addressed?
No
If so, state what they are.
Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? No
If so, state what they are.
Does your jurisdiction have the latest effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted? Yes
If no, state why. If yes, what is the effective date? February 18, 2009
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your
jurisdiction?
Yes
If no, state why.
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its
floodplain management program?
Yes
If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Basic Certification or any other available training
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? No
If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS Classification? N/A
If no, is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? No
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 0
What is the insurance in force? 0
What is the premium in force? 0
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 0
How many claims are still open or were closed without payment? 0
What were the total payments for losses? $0
Description of how the City implements the substantial improvement/substantial damage provisions of their
floodplain management ordinance
Describe: The Town of Hartline has one residential structure within the 100-year regulatory floodplain. If the structure
sustained damage after an event, the Town’s floodplain administrator with the support of the Town’s contracted
engineer will work with the property owners to assess cost of improvement. The cost will be compared to the market
value of the structure prior to damage, starting with the assessed improvement value, if available, or an appraised
value secured by the landowner. If the cost to repair the structure is greater than 50% of the structure value, the
structure will need to be brought into compliance with current floodplain regulations.
a. According to FEMA statistics as of May 2022
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
42
Table 3-9. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code Unknown
DUNS # Unknown
Community Rating System No N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No N/A N/A
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 3-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making
processes
Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
43
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
3.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant
information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such
integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.
Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress
reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of
hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
3.5.1 Existing Integration
Not applicable.
3.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Comprehensive Plan
• Water System Plan
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
3.6 Risk Assessment
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
44
3.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 3-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 3-11. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not Available
Flood 146 March 1963 Not Available
Drought 3037 March 1977 Not Available
Volcano 623 May 1980 Not Available
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996- February 1997 Not Available
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 Not Available
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 Not Available
3.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 3-12 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and the economy. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 3-12. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Wildfire 36 High
2 Earthquake 32 Medium
3 Severe Storms 24 Medium
4 Flooding 15 Low
5 Drought 9 Low
6 Landslide 0 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
8 Volcano 0 Low
3.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for this jurisdiction. Available
jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
45
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been
mitigated: 0
Other Noted Vulnerabilities
The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk
assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Public comment shows concern for wildfires and the town’s ability to provide water for
firefighting efforts in the event of power loss. Also concerned with vegetation growth.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
3.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 3-13 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 3-13. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed: Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Not applicable.
3.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 3-14 lists the identified actions, which make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this
jurisdiction. Table 3-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 3-16 summarizes the mitigation
actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.
Table 3-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action H-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials
Existing 1,3,8 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None High HMGP, BRIC, FMA Medium-
Term
Repetitive Loss Properties
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
46
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action H-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use
decisions in the community, including Growth Management Act and Unified Development Code.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials
New and
Existing
2,3,4 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-Term
Action H-3—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation
plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials
New and
Existing
1-11 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action H-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of
floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Flooding
New and
Existing
1-11 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-Term
Action H-5—Reduce wildfire hazards by introducing and enforcing ordinances that mitigate fuel supply such as
unregulated vegetation growth within corporate limits.
• Provide public information on wildfire fuel control requirements and impacts.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Wildfire
New and
Existing
1,4,5,6,7,9,11 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-Term
Action H-6— Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power, including
all well house structures.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, wildfire, drought
New and
Existing
1-11 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None High General Funds,
Grants/Loans
Medium-
Term
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
47
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action H-7—Upgrade water system to increase reliability and functionality for responses to hazards such as wildfire
or drought.
• Provide public information on water system upgrade requirements and impacts.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All Hazards
New and
Existing
1-11 Town of
Hartline City
Council
None High Staff Time, General
Fund, Grants/Loans
Short -Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Table 3-15. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
H-1 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
H-2 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
H-3 11 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
H-4 11 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
H-5 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
H-6 11 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
H-7 11 High High Yes Yes No High High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 3-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wildfire H-1, H-2,H-
5 ,H-6 ,H-7
H-1, H-5 H-3,H-5 H-6,H-7 H-7 H-6,H-7
Medium-Risk Hazards
Earthquake H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-6,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-7
H-3,H-6 H-6,H-7 H-7 H-6,H-7
Severe Storm H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-6,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-6,H-7
H-3,H-6,H-7 H-6,H-7 H-7 H-6,H-7
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
48
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
Low-Risk Hazards
Flooding H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-4,H-
6,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-4,H-6
H-3,H-4 H-6,H-7 H-6,H-7
Drought H-1,H-2,H-
3,H-6,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3H-6,H-7
H-3,H-6 H-6,H-7 H-7 H-6,H-7
Landslide H-1, H-2,H-
5 ,H-6 ,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3H-6,H-7
H-3 H-6,H-7 H-6,H-7
Dam Failure H-1, H-2,H-
5 ,H-6 ,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3H-6,H-7
H-3 H-6,H-7 H-6,H-7
Volcano H-1, H-2,H-
5 ,H-6 ,H-7
H-1,H-2,H-
3H-6,H-7
H-3 H-6,H-7 H-6,H-7
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
3.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
• Town of Hartline Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability
assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• Town of Hartline Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention
ordinance was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
49
Figure 3-1. Hartline Critical Facilities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
50
Figure 3-2. Hartline Flood Hazard.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
51
Figure 3-3. Hartline Liquefaction.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
52
Figure 3-4. Hartline NEHRP Soils.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
53
Figure 3-5. Hartline Wildfire Regime.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
54
Figure 3-6 Hartline Hazardous Material Facilities
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
55
4.0 CITY OF MOSES LAKE
4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Derek Beach, Fire Marshal
701 E Third Ave
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Telephone: (509) 764-3852
e-mail Address: DBeach@cityofml.com
Debbie Burke, Admin Svc Manager/City
Clerk
401 S Balsam St.
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Telephone: (509) 764-3703
e-mail Address: DBurke@cityofml.com
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Doug Coutts Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Brett Bastian Fire Chief
Kevin Fuhr Police Chief
Kirsten Peterson Community Development Director
Madeline Prentice Finance Director
Shannon Springer Human Resources Director
Public Works Director
4.2 Jurisdiction Profile
4.2.1 Location and Features
Moses Lake is located in central Grant County on Interstate 90 and State Route 17. Accessibility by
highway, rails, and air have made it the center for shopping, health care, social services, employment,
education, business, and industry in Grant County. Moses Lake is the home of the largest natural body of
fresh water in Grant County. The city attracts new residents and tourists alike with its thriving economy,
recreation opportunities, and arts and culture activities.
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). 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
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
56
strong due to prevailing westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean. Summer days are typically hot and dry.
Extreme temperatures commonly exceed 100 F and reaching below 0 F in winter. (Grant County
Comprehensive Plan, 2006)
4.2.2 History
The City of Moses Lake was incorporated in 1938. Pioneering farmers settled on the shores of Moses
Lake. In the 1930s, a highway was built through the town. In the 1940s, a military training base was
established that became the Larson Air Force base, which increased Moses Lake’s population. This base
was deactivated in 1965 due to budget reductions in B-52 bases. The city has experienced steady and
moderate growth, becoming a center for commercial and recreational interest in the area.
4.2.3. Governing Body Format
The city is governed by a city council with an appointed city manager. The City of Moses Lake City
Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City of Moses Lake staff will oversee its
implementation.
4.3 Current Trends
4.3.1 Population
According to the Office of Financial Management, the population of the City of Moses Lake as of April
2022 was 26,040. Since 2015, the population has grown at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent.
4.3.2 Development
Future development is anticipated at a 2.4% growth rate through the year 2038. Moses Lake has
adequate land capacity to accommodate 10,275 new residents within city limits and an additional
24,140 residents in the unincorporated UGA. While there is adequate land capacity to accommodate
projected growth, the rate of housing production would need to increase to an average of 253 units per
year to provide enough housing.
As of 2015, ten of the 15 largest manufacturing employers in Grant County were located within the
Moses Lake area. Manufacturing is the largest job sector by employment within the Moses Lake area
followed by the education, healthcare, and retail trade sectors.
There are hundreds of hazardous materials located in several businesses amongst two industrial and
multiple commercially zoned areas, as well as several locations in the County that are contiguous to the
city limits. Hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, silane, tetramethylammonium hydrogen carbonate, and
tetramethylammonium hydroxide are among the top five in the City. Several hazardous materials are
transported by railcar, but most by roadway. Besides the local delivery and shipments, there is heavy
pass through truck traffic with unknown hazards on I-90 and SR-17 with three truck stops located within
our I-90 corridor. The City recently annexed a 60-acre industrial zone of undeveloped land that could
add to the hazard inventory.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
57
The City of Moses Lake has adopted measures enforcing floodplain management as part of continued
compliance requirements; Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter 18.53, Flood Hazard Areas. All building
permit activity within the special flood hazard areas detailed in Chapter 18.53 are subject to and will
continue to be subject to the requirement of this code. The City is aware of one private dam in our
industrial zone.
Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of
permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking
previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a
hazard within a community. Table 4-2 summarizes development trends in the performance period since
the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 4-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends.
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
Yes
If yes, give the estimated area annexed and
estimated number of parcels or structures.
169.58 acres, 58 parcels
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? Yes
If yes, describe land areas and dominant uses. Residential housing, commercial business, public services,
tourism.
If yes, who currently has permitting authority
over these areas?
Grant County
Are any areas targeted for development or major redevelopment in the next five years? Yes
If yes, briefly describe, including whether any
of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
Redevelopment is expected to occur in a non-natural hazard
area. There is a superfund site near the airport.
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Single Family 133 133 143 176 109
Multi-Family 8 6 2 2 6
Other 29 16 32 20 32
Total 170 155 177 198 147
Provide the number of new-construction
permits for each hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where development
has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: 0
• Landslide: 0
• High Liquefaction Areas: 0
• Wildfire Risk Areas: 0
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
12,000 acres
4.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
58
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 4-3.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 4-4.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 4-5.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 4-6.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 4-7.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 4-8.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 4-9.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 4-10.
Table 4-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, and Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City of Moses Lake has amended and adopted aspects of the State Building Code as listed in the
Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022.
Zoning Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 2969
The Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
Subdivisions Yes Yes Yes No
Comment: Ordinance 2576, 2143, 782
The Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
Stormwater Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 2545, 1027
The Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No Yes
Comment:
Real Estate Disclosure No No No No
Comment:
Growth Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The State of Washington 36.70A.060 mandates that local governments under 36.70A.050 adopt
developmental regulations
Site Plan Review Yes No No No
Comment: Ordinance 2576
Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City adopts 43.21C.120 and WAC 197-11-904 under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to be
used in conjunction with ordinance 2133, 1149, and 1984)
Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
59
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Flood Damage Prevention Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Ordinance 2144, 1012
Moses Lake Municipal Code, 1/25/2022
Emergency Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Works jointly with Grant County EM, Fire Chief
Climate Change No No No Yes
Comment:
Other N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment:
Planning Documents
Comprehensive Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Plan updated and adopted November, 2021
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No Yes Yes
How often is the plan updated? The plan is a 20-year policy, but may be revisited every 6-years
Comment: Adopted November, 2021
Disaster Debris Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Floodplain or Watershed Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Participates NFIP, Moses Lake Watershed Council, Columbia Basin Groundwater Management Area
Stormwater Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Updated August, 2022
Urban Water Management Plan Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: Part of the Comprehensive Wastewater Plan (2015). Meets the requirements of WAC 173-240-050.
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No No
Comment:
Economic Development Plan No No No No
Comment: Moses Lake participates in the Grant County Economic Development Council, but there is not a plan.
Shoreline Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Updated June 2023 by Ord 3030 following the guidelines of RCW 90.58 and the Shoreline Management
Act
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: Moses Lake participated in the 2016 Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Climate Action Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: Grant County Emergency Management Plan Adopted in 2018.
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: The last THIRA for Moses Lake occurred in 2006
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
60
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Resolution 3853, Adopted 5/11/21
Public Health Plan Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: MOU with Grant County Health District
Other N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment:
Table 4-4. Development and Permitting Capability.
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
If no, who does? If yes, which department? Development Engineering, Permit Technician
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard
area?
No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes
Table 4-5. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes
If yes, specify: Water, Sewer, Garbage, Stormwater
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other N/A
If yes, specify:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
61
Table 4-6. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Community Development Department and Public Works / 8 positions
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Community Development Department and Public Works / 10 positions
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Community Development Department and Public Works / 4 positions
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Community Development Department and Finance Department / 2 positions
Surveyors Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Public Works Department/ 2 positions
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Public Works Department/ 3 positions
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Fire Chief/1 position
Grant writers Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Community Development, Public Works, Parks / 6 positions
Other N/A
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 4-7. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Under “Resource Links” there are a variety of sources for the public to engage with
to prepare for hazards, understand protocols, and support recovery.
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Moses Lake Municipal Government is active on Facebook. The page posts current
events, educational opportunities, and ways to become involved in the planning
process. In addition, the City utilizes Facebook to post surveys related to hazard
mitigation in order to develop a better understanding of the community.
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: In addition to the City of Moses Lake Website, the City utilizes social media outlets,
local radio stations and other various systems to communicate hazard-related
information with the public. In addition, the City utilizes GIS to publish hazard-
related information.
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
62
Criterion Response
If yes, briefly describe: The City utilizes Alert Center. Community members can be instantly notified of
alerts and emergencies by subscribing to Notify Me or RSS.
Table 4-8. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance.
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? The City of Moses Lake
Community Development
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Community Development,
Building Official
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? No
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last
amended?
2009
Ordinance Number or Code Reference: Chapter 18.53 Flood Hazard Areas
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum
requirements?
No
If exceeds, in what ways?
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
May 26, 2022
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that
need to be addressed?
Yes
If so, state what they are. The Moses Lake Floodplain Ordinance does not meet minimum NFIP requirements
and is inconsistent with the Washington State Model Ordinance. New ordinance to
be adopted by February 2024. Additional staff training also recommended.
Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? No
If so, state what they are.
Does your jurisdiction have the latest effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps
adopted?
Yes
If no, state why. If yes, what is the effective date? February 18, 2009
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your
jurisdiction?
Yes
If no, state why.
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to
support its floodplain management program?
Yes
If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? NFIP basics. NFIP 273: Managing Floodplain Development
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? No
If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS Classification?
If no, is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? No
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 6
What is the insurance in force? $2,633,000
What is the premium in force? $3,957
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
63
Criterion Response
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 0
How many claims are still open or were closed without payment? None
What were the total payments for losses? 0
Description of how the City implements the substantial improvement/substantial damage provisions of their
floodplain management ordinance
Describe: After an event, the City’s Building Official will assemble a team of inspectors to perform a rapid
assessment of structures within the floodplain to assess which structures may have been damaged. If the event
was flooding, this team would have also conducted a windshield survey during the flood event to document
structures affected by flooding. All damaged structures will be required to obtain a flood permit for the proposed
repairs and provide a contractor’s cost estimate. The cost will be compared to the market value of the structure
prior to damage, starting with the assessed improvement value, if available, or an appraised value secured by the
landowner. If the cost to repair the structure is greater than 50% of the structure value, the structure will need to
be brought into compliance with current floodplain regulations.
a. According to FEMA statistics as of August 23, 2022
Table 4-9. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code Yes 47245 2018
DUNS # Yes 083348011 Unknown
Community Rating System No N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 2 2011
Public Protection Yes 4 2023
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 4-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
64
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Unsure
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Unsure
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Unsure
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
4.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant
information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such
integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.
Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress
reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of
hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
4.5.1 Existing Integration
Current City staff are unsure of how the plan may have been integrated into other planning efforts over
the past 10 years.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
65
4.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Post-Disaster Recovery Plan—The City does not have a recovery plan but would benefit from
developing one as a mitigation planning action.
• Climate Action Plan—There is not currently an action plan for reducing greenhouse gas
emission and adapting to likely impacts of climate change. A Climate Action Plan would be
valuable in cross-planning initiatives. The City anticipates a state requirement to comply with
a chapter in the comprehensive plan to address climate change.
• Capital Improvement Projects—Capital improvement project proposals may take into
consideration hazard mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.
• Building Code—The City is currently enforcing and following codes amended by the
Washington State Building Code Council. These codes incorporate local modifications to
account for the climatic, topographic and geographic conditions that exist in the City.
• Zoning Code—The City’s Zoning Code promotes the health and safety of the population of
the City and the land resources, while ensuring future growth follows the guidelines laid out
by consistent, comprehensive, and careful planning.
• Stormwater Management—The City’s Stormwater Plan and Program seeks to protect their
greatest asset, Moses Lake, through controlling construction and municipal operation
impacts on water quality and implementing better planning to minimize the impact of runoff
on the watershed.
• Comprehensive Plan- The Comprehensive Plan includes how to protect and minimize hazards
in the community including fire, flood, hazardous materials, and geologic and seismic
hazards.
• Shoreline Master Program- The shoreline program includes how to protect and minimize
hazards along the shoreline by promoting natural vegetation to buffer wind, prevent erosion,
and protect wildlife.
• Community Wildfire Protection Plan- The City is part of the CWPP. This plan seeks to
mitigate damage and preserve life and property due to wildfires.
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
4.6 Risk Assessment
4.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 4-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
66
Table 4-11. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not Available
Flood 146 March 1963 Not Available
Drought 3037 March 1977 Significant damage to
farmland and crops.
Volcano 623 May 1980 The City was covered in
several inches of ash. Crops
were damaged and roads and
businesses were closed. It
took months to clean up.
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996- February 1997 Not Available
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 Power outages, many vehicles
slide off the road due to snow
conditions.
Barker Canyon Fire 5013 September 2012 One mobile home was
destroyed as well as 4-5 out-
buildings.
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 Power outages and tree
damage in the area.
Buckshot Fire 5257 July 2018 None in area
Grass Valley fire 5371 August 2018 25 residences in the county
were threatened as well as
crops and livestock. Heavy,
thick smoke covered the City.
COVID-19 3427 January 2020-present Ongoing
COVID-19 Pandemic January 2020-present Ongoing
4.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 4-12 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and the economy. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 4-12. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Earthquake 32 Medium
2 Severe Storms 24 Medium
3 Flooding 18 Medium
4 Landslide 18 Medium
5 Wildfire 12 Low
6 Drought 9 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
67
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
8 Volcano 0 Low
4.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for this jurisdiction. Available
jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been
mitigated: 0
Other Noted Vulnerabilities
The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk
assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Impacts from the superfund site
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
4.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 4-13 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 4-13. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Initiative #ML-MH1 – City of Moses Lake No Yes ML-6
Comment: Back-up power generator for Sage Bay Sewer Lift Station.
Richard advised that five generators were replaced since the
Last update at sewer lift stations, Sage Bay was not one of them.
Tony is working on generator needs for Water Wells and a verbal
Cost of $350k at Civic Center generator would only be to maintain
Minimum-essential services
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
68
4.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 4-14 lists the identified actions, which make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this
jurisdiction. Table 4-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 4-16 summarizes the mitigation
actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.
Table 4-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action ML-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
Existing 1, 3, 8, 9 The City of
Moses Lake
Community
Development
Municipal
Services,
Finance
Department
High HMGP, BRIC, FMA Medium-
Term
Action ML- 2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use
decisions in the community, including shoreline management and wildfire plans.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
2,3,4 The City of
Moses Lake
Community
Development,
Municipal
Services
City Manager Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-Term
Action ML- 3—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation
plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
1-11 Municipal
Services
City Manager,
Community
Development,
Fire and Police
Department
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action ML-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of
floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
1-11 Community
Development
Municipal
Services
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-Term
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
69
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action ML- 5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including but not
limited to the following:
• Water conservation
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
1-11 Municipal
Services
City Manager Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action ML-6— Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power,
including Fire, Police, and administration buildings and utility infrastructure.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
Existing 1,4,11 Finance
Department,
Municipal
Services
City Manager Medium General Funds,
BRIC, HMGP, Utility
Rates
Medium-
Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Table 4-15. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
ML-1 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
ML-2 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
ML-3 11 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
ML-4 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
ML-5 11 Low Low Yes No Yes Low Low
ML-6 11 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
70
Table 4-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
Medium-Risk Hazards
Earthquake ML-1,ML-
2,ML-3, ML-
6
ML-1, ML-
2,ML-3
ML-3 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Severe Storms ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3, ML-6
ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3,ML-6
ML-3 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Flooding ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3, ML-4,
ML-6,
ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3, ML-4,
ML-6
ML-3, ML-4 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Landslide ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3
ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Low-Risk Hazards
Wildfire ML-1, ML-2,
ML-6, ML_3
ML-1 ML-3 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Drought ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3, ML-6
ML-1, ML-2,
ML-3, ML-7
ML-3, ML-6 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Dam Failure ML-1, ML-3 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
Volcano ML-1, ML-3 ML-6 ML-1 ML-5 ML-6
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
4.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
• The City of Moses Lake Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full
capability assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• The City of Moses Lake Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention
ordinance was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
71
Figure 4-1. Moses Lake Critical Facilities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
72
Figure 4-2. Moses Lake Flood Hazards.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
73
Figure 4-3. Moses Lake Landslide Hazard Areas.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
74
Figure 4-4. Moses Lake Liquefaction.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
75
Figure 4-5. Moses Lake NEHRP Soils.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
76
Table 4-6. Moses Lake Wildfire Regime.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
77
Figure 4-7. Moses Lake Hazardous Materials Facilities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
78
5.0 GRANT COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10, DBA ROYAL SLOPE FIRE RESCUE
AND EMS
5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact
Alternate Point of Contact
Eric A. Linn, Fire Chief
4957 Road 13.5 SW
Royal City, WA 99357
Telephone: (509) 346-2658
e-mail Address: chief@grantfire10.com
Neil Vargas, Assistant Chief
4975 Road 13.5 SW
Royal City, WA 99357
Telephone (509) 346-2658
e-mail Address: safety@grantfire10.com
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Tim Freeman Board Chairman
Angie Argo Board Secretary
Neil Vargas Assistant Chief of Operations
5.2 Jurisdiction Profile
5.2.1 Overview
The following is a summary of key information about our jurisdiction:
Grant County Fire District 10 (DBA Royal Slope Fire Rescue and EMS) was established in 1958 and
provides Fire suppression, Incident response, Emergency Medical response, and transport for our
community. We also promote fire safety thru education in cooperation with our local schools and
community organizations. Royal Slope Fire Rescue and EMS serves a response area of over 500 square
miles surrounding and including the communities of Royal City, Beverly, Schwana, Smyrna, Royal Camp,
Mardon, and the community of Marine View Heights. In 2020 by a vote of the people, the former Grant
County Fire District 11 merged into Fire District 10 to help standardize services in our community. A new
headquarters station and maintenance facility was acquired in mid-2020. Its location in the Port of Royal
Slope is geographically centered in the district. The upgraded facility was designed to meet the current
and future needs as our district continues to grow. Royal Slope Fire Rescue and EMS is staffed with a
combination of Volunteers and Career staffing. There are a total of 5 additional community based
stations strategically placed throughout the balance of our community. Due to the rural nature of the
fire district, each year we are challenged by a number wildland fires. These fires can range in size from
small agricultural weed fires to thousands of acres of wild lands in size. Based on the size of the district
and the limited resources many of these fires require resources beyond the agency’s capability. We
routinely request mutual aid for larger fires and based on the complexity of ownership of the lands in
our community we work closely with our state and federal partners to protect their lands.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
79
The Royal Slope Fire Rescue and EMS assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the Fire Chief
will oversee its implementation.
The district participates in the Public Protection Class Rating System and currently has a rating of 6.
5.2.2 Service Area
The district service area covers 500+ square miles serving a population of 9,000.
5.2.3 Assets
Table 5-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.
Table 5-2. Special Purpose District Assets.
Asset Value
Property
< 5 acres of land N/A
Equipment
32 Firefighting and Emergency Medical Response Apparatus $6,975,000.00
3 BLS Ambulances N/A
7 Type 1 Structural Fire Engines
7 Tenders (5 Tactical)
7 Type 4 Brush Trucks
4 Support Vehicles
1 Technical Rescue Type 6
1 Support/Shop Truck
2 Side by Sides for EMS and Firefighting
Total: $6,975,000.00
Critical Facilities
HQ Fire Station and Maintenance Facility, 4975 Road 13.5 SW Royal
City
$3,238,890.00
Station 11-1 1st Ave SE Royal Camp $735,742.00
Station 11-2 12010 Road E. SE Othello $343,000.00
Station 11-3 7012 Hwy 262 E Othello $814,000.00
Station 10-2 11863 Adams Road Royal City $343,000.00
Station 10-3 20638 Lower Crabe Creek Beverly $336,976.00
Repeater Site Road 9 SW and Frenchmen Hills $54,966.00
Total: $5,866,574.00
5.3 Current Trends
As our community continues to grow, we see an increase in the need for expanding our Emergency
Medical Services to include increasing staffing to staff and operate our BLS Ambulance Services. We
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
80
currently have a model that is comprised of volunteer EMTs and drivers. As our call volume increases we
are challenged with maintaining available units.
Our community is becoming a destination for enjoying the out of doors. Our recreation population
continues to grow each year as more and more of our fire district is developed with parks and public
access points. The recent completion of the Palouse Trail in our community has drawn a number of new
people to our community in an area of our district that is remote and has little infrastructure. This will
continue to add pressure to our already stressed emergency services.
While our community population is growing, our pool of available volunteers continues to shrink. We
recognize this as a national trend. The outlook for maintaining operations at our current levels without
additional funding is impossible. The complexity of incidents that our crews face continues to challenge
our ranks.
5.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 5-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 5-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 5-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 5-6.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 5-7.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 5-8.
Table 5-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Plan, Study, or Program Date of Most
Recent Update
Comment
None.
Table 5-4. Fiscal Capability.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
81
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service No
If yes, specify:
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or
Developers
No
Other No
If yes, specify:
Table 5-5. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Grant County Sheriff’s Office DEM
Grant writers No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Other No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 5-6. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? No
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
82
Criterion Response
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Table 5-7. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
DUNS# Yes Unknown N/A
Community Rating System N/A N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A
Public Protection Yes 6/8 2020
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 5-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making
processes
Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
83
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted High
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
5.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from
those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in
place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the
end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process
described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation
actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
5.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and
the following other local plans and programs:
None.
5.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
84
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Wildfire Protection Plans
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
5.6 Risk Assessment
5.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 5-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 5-9. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not available.
Flood 146 March 1963 Not available.
Drought 3037 March 1977 Not available.
Volcano 623 May 1980 Not available.
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996- February
1997
Not available.
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 Not available.
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 Not available.
5.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 5-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and district operations. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
85
Table 5-10. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Earthquake 34 High
2 Wildfire 24 Medium
3 Severe Storms 24 Medium
4 Landslide 18 Medium
5 Drought 9 Low
6 Flooding 0 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
8 Volcano 0 Low
5.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results
of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• None known.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
5.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 5-11 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 5-11. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Initiative #FPD10-MH2 – Grant County Fire Protection District #10 Yes
Comment: Replacement of headquarters fire station.
In 2020 with cooperation from the Port of Royal Slope, a new Headquarters Station was acquired.
Initiative #FPD10-MH1 – Grant County Fire Protection District #10 Yes FD10-3
Comment: Backup power generators for the Royal City Fire Station and the radio
repeater on Frenchman Hills.
The repeater site backup power remains in place. The former fire station had a generator, the new
Headquarters Facility does not have a backup power at this time.
5.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 5-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction.
Table 5-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 5-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard
of concern and mitigation type.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
86
Table 5-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action FPD10-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard
areas, prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard
areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
Existing 1-11 FPD 10 Grant County High HMGP, BRIC, FMA Medium-
Term
Action FPD10-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard
mitigation plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
New and
Existing
1-11 FPD 10 Grant County Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action FDP10-3— Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power,
including the new Headquarters Station.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, Wildfire, Hazardous
Materials.
Existing 1-11 FDP 10 High BRIC, HMGP,
General Funds
Medium-
Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Table 5-13. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
FDP10-1 11 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
FDP10-2 11 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
FDP10-3 11 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
5.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
87
6.0 PORT OF ROYAL SLOPE
6.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact
Alternate Point of Contact
Bonnie Valentine, Director
PO Box 147
4572 Road 13.6 SW
Royal City, WA 99357
Telephone: (509) 346-2317
e-mail Address: bvalentine@portofroyal.com
Chairman
PO Box 147
4572 Road 13.6 SW
Royal City, WA 99357
Telephone:509-346-2317
e-mail Address: bvalentine@portofroyal.com
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Alan Schrom Commissioner
Frank Mianecki Commissioner
Davey Miller Commissioner
6.2 Jurisdiction Profile
6.2.1 Overview
The Port of Royal Slope was formed in 1958 as Grant County Port District No 2 and operates under
Washington State RCW 53. The Port’s primary role has been to foster economic development within its
jurisdiction by encouraging agricultural, industrial, and commercial businesses to locate in the region
while also supporting tourism and recreational opportunities. The Port of Royal Slope owns and
operates a Group A water system providing potable water and fire flow to businesses in the industrial
area and a 26-mile short line railroad between Royal City and Othello providing freight service to the
area. The Port of Royal Slope currently has one full-time employee and 1 part-time employee. The
three-member elected, Port of Royal Slope Board of Commissioners, assumes responsibility for the
adoption of this plan; the Director will oversee its implementation. Funding comes primarily through
Grant County property tax collections, sale and lease of property, and water rates.
6.2.2 Service Area
The Port of Royal Slope service area covers approximately 400 square miles, it encompasses an area
from the Columbia River on the west to the Grant/Adams County line to the east and from the
Frenchman Hills Road south approximately 14 miles to the Saddle Mountains. Serving a population of
approximately 5,900.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
88
6.2.3 Assets
Table 6-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.
Table 6-2. Special Purpose District Assets.
Asset Value
Property
664.83 acres of land $1,935,545.00
Equipment
John Deere Loader $20,000.00
Curtain Side Trailer $10,000.00
Total: $1,965,545.00
Critical Facilities
Well Facility #1 5280 Road 13.9 SW Royal City, WA 99357 $3,000,000
Well Facility #2 14019 Road F SW Royal City, WA 99357 $3,000,000
4.5 Miles of 12” water mains $3,500,000
26 Miles of Railroad between Othello and Royal City $56,000,000
Total: $65,500,000
6.3 Current Trends
The Port of Royal Slope’s Group A water system has grown over the years and currently has a water
service area of approximately 10 square miles. The system consists of 2 wells, each has a complete
pump facility and a 100,000-gallon reservoir. There is one backup generator, fire pump, and
approximately 4.5 miles of 12” watermains, 21 fire hydrants and 9 commercial/industrial connections.
We anticipate the need for more water as land is developed encouraging new businesses move to the
area and current businesses grow. Our system provides the only fire flow available in the industrial area.
The Port of Royal Slope also owns a 26-mile shortline railroad from Othello to Royal City. Rail service was
restored in 2016 and the number of railcars increases each year.
6.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 6-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 6-6.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
89
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-7.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 6-8.
Table 6-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Plan, Study, or Program Date of Most Recent Update Comment
Port of Royal Slope Comprehensive
Plan
2021 Updated Annually
Capital Improvement Plan 2021 Updated Annually is included in the
Comp Plan
Table 4-5. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes
If yes, specify: Fees Collected for our Group A Water System
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
90
Table 6-5. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Services are provided by Contract Support
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Services are provided by Contract Support
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Grant writers No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Other No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 6-6. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes
If yes, briefly describe: The Port of Royal Slope Board of Commissioners
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: We would call our water customers in the event of an issue with the water system.
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
If yes, briefly describe:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
91
Table 6-7. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code N/A N/A N/A
DUNS# Yes Working on a
new one
N/A
Community Rating System N/A N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 6-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Medium
Comment: Port of Royal Slope Resolution No. 2013.15
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
92
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Unsure
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Unsure
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
6.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from
those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in
place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the
end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process
described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation
actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
6.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and
the following other local plans and programs:
• Weed control along the railroad to help reduce the risk of burning railroad ties in wild fires.
• Fire District #10 is aware of our railroad and does keep track of it in relation to wild fires to do
their best to keep the ties from catching fire.
• We have followed the DOH Office of Drinking Water recommendations with a 100’ + sanitary
circle and Grant County Building codes when constructing our pumping and water storage
facilities.
6.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
93
• Port of Royal Slope Comprehensive Plan – updated annually
• Port of Royal Slope Capital Improvement Plan – updated annually
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
6.6 Risk Assessment
6.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 6-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 6-9. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not available.
Flood 146 March 1963 Not available.
Drought 3037 March 1977 Not available.
Volcano 623 May 1980 Not available.
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996- February 1997 Not available.
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 Not available.
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 Not available.
6.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 6-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and district operations. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 6-10. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Earthquake 34 High
2 Wildfire 24 Medium
3 Severe Storms 24 Medium
4 Landslide 18 Medium
5 Drought 9 Low
6 Flooding 0 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
94
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
8 Volcano 0 Low
6.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results
of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Wildfire - Railroad
• Earthquake – Wells & Railroad
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
6.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 6-11 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 6-11. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed: Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Not applicable.
6.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 6-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction.
Table 6-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 6-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard
of concern and mitigation type.
Table 6-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action PRS-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
Existing 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Port of Royal
Slope
Grant County,
Royal City
High Port of Royal
Slope/Rail
Operator
Long-term
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
95
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action PRS-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation
plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
New and
Existing
All Port of Royal
Slope
Grant County Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action PRS-3— Purchase generator for Well #2 to provide redundancy to provide adequate backup power for
potable water and fire flow.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
Existing 1 Port of Royal
Slope
Medium Port of Royal Slope,
Grant funding
Medium-
Term
Action PRS-4—Reduce fire risk to railroad infrastructure by spraying weeds and performing other vegetation
management.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Wildfire
Existing 1, 9, 10 Port of Royal
Slope
Rail Operator Medium Port of Royal
Slope/Rail
Operator
Medium-
Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Acronyms used here are defined at the beginning of this volume.
Table 6-13. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
PRS-1 7 High High Yes No No Low Low
PRS-2 11 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
PRS-3 1 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
PRS-4 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
96
Table 6-14. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Earthquake PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
Medium-Risk Hazards
Wildfire PRS-3, 4 PRS-1, 4 PRS-4 PRS-2, 3, 4 PRS-1 PRS-4
Severe Storms PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
Landslide PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
Low-Risk Hazards
Drought PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS2, 3 PRS-1
Flooding PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
Dam Failure PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
Volcano PRS-3 PRS-1 PRS-2, 3 PRS-1
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
6.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
• None
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability:
• We probably need more information on what the potential impacts of earthquakes would be on
our wells and how you mitigate that risk.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
97
7.0 GRANT COUNTY PORT DISTRICT #1, PORT OF QUINCY
7.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact
Alternate Point of Contact
Patric Connelly, Commissioner
101 F St. SW
Quincy, WA 98848
Telephone: (509) 237-3244
e-mail Address: patricf52@gmail.com
Darci L Kleyn, Comptroller
101 F St. SW
Quincy, WA 98848
Telephone: 509-787-3715
e-mail Address: darci@portofquincy.org
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Pat Connelly Commissioner
Darci Kleyn Comptroller
7.2 Jurisdiction Profile
7.2.1 Overview
Grant County Port District No. 1 (Port of Quincy) (the Port) is a municipal corporation created in March
1958 through enabling legislation by the consent of the voters within the Port district. The Port is a
special purpose government entity that provides rental property, an airport, and a golf course to the
public, and is supported through user charges and real property taxes. In addition, the Port operates an
intermodal facility. The Port has no stockholders, or equity holders. An elected three-member board
governs the Port. It employs up to 20 full-time, part-time and seasonal employees. As well as user
charges and property taxes, the Port may be funded with grant revenue.
The Port assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; Grant County will oversee its
implementation.
7.2.2 Service Area
The Port includes unincorporated areas of eastern Grant County, including the cities of Quincy and
George. The total service area covers 572 square miles. It is the largest port district in Grant County. As
of the 2020 Census the Port serves a population of 15,628.
7.2.3 Assets
Table 7-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
98
Table 7-2. Special Purpose District Assets.
Asset Value
Property
503 acres of land $21,736,985
Equipment
Intermodal transportation equipment $1,652,173
Vehicles $72,100
Total: $ 1,724,273
Critical Facilities
Administration Office/Business Center (101 F ST SW Quincy, WA
98848)
$1,558,000
Event Center (115 F ST SW Quincy, WA 98848) $1,895,000
Manufacturing Facility (1302 NE Intermodal Way Quincy, WA 98848) $2,000,000
Storage Buildings (321 Bob Jacques Way Quincy, WA 98848) $1,600,000
Quincy Airport Runway, Hangers, Lights (8426 RD P NW Quincy, WA
98848)
$360,000
Intermodal Office and Shop (408 Intermodal Way Quincy, WA 98848) $ 1,341,038
Total: $ 8,754,038
7.3 Current Trends
Over the last decade the population of the Port grew around 16 percent. During the same timeframe,
the assessed value increased 221%, from $2,107,228,153 to $6,756,779,786.
7.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 7-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 7-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 7-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 7-6.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 7-7.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 7-8.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
99
Table 7-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Plan, Study, or Program Date of Most
Recent Update
Comment
Comprehensive Plan 2020 In process of updating again now
Table 7-4. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes
If yes, specify: If specified in RCW and passed by Resolution
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other
If yes, specify:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
100
Table 7-5. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Grant writers No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Other No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 7-6. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Table 7-7. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
DUNS# Yes 839937562 N/A
Community Rating System N/A N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
101
Participating? Classification Date Classified
DUNS# Yes 839937562 N/A
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 7-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
High
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
102
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
7.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from
those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in
place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the
end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process
described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation
actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
7.5.1 Existing Integration
No existing integration.
7.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
No plans for future integration.
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
7.6 Risk Assessment
7.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 7-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
103
Table 7-9. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 Not available.
Flood 146 March 1963 Not available.
Drought 3037 March 1977 Not available.
Volcano 623 May 1980 Not available.
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996-February 1997 Not available.
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 $0
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 $20,000
7.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 7-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and district operations. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 7-10. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Wildfires 34 High
2 Earthquake 32 Medium
3 Severe Storms 24 Medium
4 Flooding 9 Low
5 Drought 9 Low
6 Landslide 0 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
8 Volcano 0 Low
7.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results
of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
None.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
7.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
104
Table 7-11 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 7-11. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed; Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Not applicable.
7.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 7-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction.
Table 7-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 7-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard
of concern and mitigation type.
Table 7-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action POQ-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard
areas, prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard
areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
Existing 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Port of Quincy Grant County,
Royal City
High Port of Quincy,
Grant funding
Long-term
Action POQ-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation
plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
New and
Existing
All Port of Quincy Grant County Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action POQ-3— Purchase generator for facilities that require back up power.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
Existing 1 Port of Quincy Medium Port of Quincy,
Grant funding
Medium-
Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
105
Table 7-13. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
POQ-1 7 High High Yes No No Low Low
POQ-2 11 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
POQ-3 1 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
7.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
NONE
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability:
• As a Port District, we believe that the information you are developing may be useful to us, but
do not, and have not in the past, spent any time on hazard mitigation planning, and feel this
process is difficult for us to contribute to.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
106
8.0 GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #1, SAMARITAN
HEALTHCARE
8.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact
Alternate Point of Contact
Gretchen Youngren, Exec. Director of
Development & Communications
801 E. Wheeler Rd.
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Telephone: (509) 793-9647
e-mail Address:
gyoungren@samaritanhealthcare.com
Alex Town, Chief Administrative Officer
801 E. Wheeler Rd
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Telephone: (509) 793-9710
e-mail Address: atown@samaritanhealthcare.com
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
Gretchen Youngren Exec Director Development and Communications
Alex Town Chief Administrative Officer
Matt Davis Facilities Director
Ken Mitchell Emergency Management Consultant
8.2 Jurisdiction Profile
8.2.1 Overview
Grant County Public Hospital District No.1 (dba Samaritan Healthcare) is hospital district governed by a
publicly elected board of Hospital Commissioners. There are 5 seats that represent the entire district.
The Hospital District was formed in 1947 and the hospital was first providing care to patients in 1949.
The hospital employs 730 hospital staff and 85 medical staff.
Samaritan Healthcare is the only hospital in Grant County and provides both inpatient and outpatient
medical care to much of the population of Grant County, and Othello, Washington. The hospital is
funded by primarily by private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and self-pay patients.
The Samaritan Healthcare Emergency Management Committee assumes responsibility for the adoption
of this plan; the Senior Leadership Team will oversee its implementation.
8.2.2 Service Area
The District service area covers 2,795.8 square miles serving a population of 114,153, providing medical
care to all citizens requiring services offered.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
107
8.2.3 Assets
Table 8-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.
Table 8-2. Special Purpose District Assets.
Asset Value
Property
74.94 acres of land
Equipment
Main Hospital Generator $435,000.00
Total: $435,000
Critical Facilities
Samaritan Hospital 801 E. Wheeler Rd $181,888,449
Samaritan Clinic 1550 S. Pioneer Way $34,983,247
Samaritan Patton Clinic 8420 Aspi Blvd $602,570
Samaritan Professional Center 660 S. Coolidge Dr $4,327,598
Total: $221,801,864
8.3 Current Trends
Healthcare demand in Washington is currently at an all-time high across the state. Many hospitals are at
or above inpatient capacity. Samaritan Healthcare is not immune to these current demands. In addition
to current market trends, Samaritan Healthcare projects significant growth over the next few years.
Moses lake is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the state of Washington. Population growth and
the demographic configuration of the populations will impact future demand for health services.
Projected annual growth rate is forecasted at more than 2%.
8.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 8-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 8-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 8-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 8-6.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 8-7.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 8-8.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
108
Table 8-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Plan, Study, or Program Date of Most
Recent Update
Comment
Emergency Operations Plan 2022 Updated Annually
Master Facilities Plan 2015
Mass Casualty Incident Plan
NFPA 99 – Healthcare Facilities Code 2012 Required Regulatory Code
Table 8-4. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other No
If yes, specify:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
109
Table 8-5. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Consultants
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes
If Yes, Department/Position:
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Emergency Management Consultant
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes
If Yes, Department/Position:
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department/Position: Emergency Management Consultant
Grant writers No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Other Yes/No
If Yes, Department/Position:
Table 8-6. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
If yes, briefly describe:
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Everbridge Communications Platform
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
If yes, briefly describe:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
110
Table 8-7. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
DUNS # No N/A
Community Rating System N/A N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 8-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Medium
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comment:
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
111
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some
improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough
information is known to assign a rating.
8.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from
those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in
place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the
end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process
described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation
actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
8.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and
the following other local plans and programs:
• Emergency Operations Plan
• Master Facilities Plan
8.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Capital Improvements Projects
• Post-Disaster Recovery Plan
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
112
8.6 Risk Assessment
8.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 8-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 8-9. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Flood 70 March 1957 $0
Flood 146 March 1963 $0
Drought 3037 March 1977 $0
Volcano 623 May 1980 $
Ice, Wind, Snow,
Landslide, Flood
1159 December 1996- February 1997 $0
Severe Winter Storm,
Wind, Landslide, Mudslide
1682 December 2006 $0
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
4309 January 2017 $0
8.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 8-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property and district operations. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 8-10. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Earthquake 32 Medium
2 Severe Storms 24 Medium
3 Flooding 18 Medium
4 Landslide 18 Medium
5 Wildfire 12 Low
6 Drought 9 Low
7 Dam Failure 0 Low
8 Volcano 0 Low
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
113
8.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results
of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Mass Casualty Incident
• Hazardous Materials Incident
• Pandemic/Epidemic
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
8.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 8-11 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 8-11. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed; Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Not applicable.
8.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 8-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction.
Table 8-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 8-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard
of concern and mitigation type.
Table 8-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action SH-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
Existing All Samaritan
Hospital
Grant County High General funds,
grant funds
Medium-
Term
AUGUST 28, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
114
Benefits New
or Existing
Assets
Objectives Met Lead Agency Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action SH-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation
plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
All
New and
Existing
All Samaritan
Hospital
Grant County Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Medium-
Term
Action SH-3— Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, wildfire
Existing All Samaritan
Hospital
High General Funds,
grant funds
Medium-
Term
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an
extended timeframe.
Table 8-13. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action # # of
Objectives
Met
Benefits Costs Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
SH-1 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
SH-2 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
SH-3 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
8.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
• Samaritan Hospital Emergency Operations Plan – Used to determine response for hazards
• Samaritan Hospital Hazard Vulnerability Analysis – Used to rank hazards
• Samaritan Hospital Master Facilities Plan – Used to assess property values
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
MARCH 17, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
Appendix A
Planning Partnership Expectations
A-1
APPENDIX A.
PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
ACHIEVING DMA COMPLIANCE FOR ALL PLANNING PARTNERS
One of the goals of the multi-jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve
compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for all participating members in the planning
effort. DMA compliance must be certified for each member in order to maintain eligibility for the
benefits under the DMA. Whether our planning process generates ten individual plans, or one
large plan that has a chapter for each partner jurisdiction, the following items must be
addressed by each planning partner to achieve DMA compliance:
Participate in the process. It must be documented in the plan that each planning partner
“participated” in the process that generated the plan. There is flexibility in defining
“participation”. Participation can vary based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City or County,
vs. a Special Purpose District). However, the level of participation must be defined and the
extent for which this level of participation has been met for each partner must be contained in
the plan context.
Consistency Review. Review of existing documents pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify
policies or recommendations that are not consistent with those documents reviewed in
producing the “parent” plan or have policies and recommendations that complement the hazard
mitigation initiatives selected (i.e.: comp plans, basin plans or hazard specific plans).
Action Review. For Plan updates, a review of the strategies from your prior action plan to
determine those that have been accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those
that have not been accomplished were not completed.
Update Localized Risk Assessment. Personalize the Risk Assessment for each jurisdiction by
removing hazards not associated within the defined jurisdiction’s geographic area, or redefining
vulnerability based on a hazard’s impact to a jurisdiction. This phase will include:
A ranking of the risk
A description of the number and type of structures at risk
An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
A general description of land use and development trends within the community
to ensure that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Capability assessment. Each planning partner must identify and review their individual
regulatory, technical and financial capabilities with regards to the implementation of hazard
mitigation actions.
Personalize mitigation recommendations. Identify and prioritize mitigation recommendations
specific to the each jurisdiction’s defined area.
Create an Action Plan.
Incorporate Public Participation. Each jurisdiction must present the plan to the public for
comment at least once, within two weeks prior to adoption. This public review can also be
Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements…
A-2
achieved through the Grant County Department of Emergency Management public review
meetings and/or posting the plan update on the webpage.
Plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction.
One of the benefits to multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means
more than monetary resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media
resources, technical expertise will all need to be utilized to generate a successful plan. In
addition, these resources can be pooled such that decisions can be made by a peer group
applying to the whole and thus reducing the individual level of effort of each planning partner.
This will be accomplished by the formation of a steering committee made up of planning
partners and other “stakeholders” within the planning area. The size and makeup of this steering
committee will be determined by the planning partnership. This body will assume the decision
making responsibilities on behalf of the entire partnership. This will streamline the planning
process by reducing the number of meetings that will need to be attended by each planning
partner. The assembled Steering Committee for this effort will meet on an as needed basis as
determined by the planning team, and will provide guidance and decision making during all
phases of the plan’s development. Initially, the Steering Committee meetings will occur more
frequently, usually monthly, to make certain the planning process continues and all matters are
addressed.
With the above participation requirements in mind, each partner is expected to aid this process
by being prepared to develop its section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this
effort, each Planning Partner shall provide the following:
A. A “Letter of Intent to participate” or Resolution to participate to the Planning Team (see
exhibit A).
B. Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard
mitigation point of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan.
C. Support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee selected
to oversee the development of this plan.
D. Provide support in the form of mailing list, possible meeting space, and public
information materials, such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures,
required to implement the public involvement strategy developed by the Steering
Committee.
E. Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to
participate. Opportunities such as:
a. Steering Committee meetings
b. Public meetings or open houses
c. Workshops/ Planning Partner specific training sessions
d. Public review and comment periods prior to adoption
…APPENDIX A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS, TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS
A-3
At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance
records will be used to document participation for each planning partner. No thresholds will
be established as minimum levels of participation. However, each planning partner should
attempt to attend all possible meetings and events.
F. There will be one mandatory workshop that all planning partners will be required to
attend. This workshop will cover the proper completion of the jurisdictional annex
template which is the basis for each partner’s jurisdictional chapter in the plan. Failure to
have a representative at this workshop will disqualify the planning partner from
participation in this effort. The schedule for this workshop will be such that all committed
planning partners will be able to attend. The workshop can be completed within each
jurisdiction on an individual basis. In the event that schedule conflicts arise, not allowing
an in-person workshop, it can be completed electronically and/or via conference call.
G. After participation in the mandatory template workshop, each partner will be required to
complete their template and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established
by the Steering Committee. Failure to complete your template in the required time frame
may lead to disqualification from the partnership.
H. Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies,
plans, and ordinances specific to the hazards to determine inconsistencies between
those documents reviewed by the (local) jurisdiction and the same such documents
reviewed in the preparation of the County (parent) Plan. For example, if your community
has a floodplain management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent
with any of the County’s Basin Plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable
incorporation into the plan for your area.
I. Each partner will be expected to review the Risk Assessment and identify hazards and
vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide the jurisdiction
specific mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of
risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner.
J. Each partner will be expected to review and determine if the mitigation
recommendations chosen in the parent plan will meet the needs of its jurisdiction.
Projects within each jurisdiction consistent with the parent plan recommendations will
need to be identified and prioritized, and reviewed to determine their benefits vs. costs.
K. Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project,
who will oversee the task, how it will be financed, and when the project is anticipated to
occur.
L. Each partner will be required to sponsor at least one public meeting to present the draft
plan to its constituents at least 2 weeks prior to adoption. This public review can also be
achieved through the Grant County Department of Emergency Management public
review meetings and/or posting the plan update on the webpage.
M. Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
Templates and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all
committed planning partners. Each partner will be expected to complete their templates in a
timely manner and according to the timeline specified by the Steering Committee.
MARCH 17, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
Appendix B
Procedures for Linking to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
B-1
APPENDIX B.
PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO
THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
Not all eligible local governments within Grant County are included in the Grant County Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update. It is assumed that some or all of these non-participating local
governments may choose to “link” to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under
the federal Disaster Mitigation Act. In addition, some of the current partnership may not continue
to meet eligibility requirements due to a lack of participation as prescribed by the plan. The
following “linkage” procedures define the requirements established by the Plan’s Steering
Committee and all planning partners for dealing with an increase or decrease in the number of
planning partners linked to this plan. It should be noted that a currently non-participating
jurisdiction within the defined planning area is not obligated to link to this plan. These
jurisdictions can chose to do their own “complete” plan that addresses all required elements of
section 201.6 of 44CFR.
INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE
Eligible linking jurisdictions are instructed to complete all of the following procedures:
• The eligible jurisdiction requests a “Linkage Package” by contacting Grant County
Department of Emergency Management for the plan:
The linkage package will include:
– A copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan (electronic or paper format).
– Planning partner’s expectations package.
– A sample “letter of intent” to link to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
– A Special Purpose District or City template and instructions.
– Catalog of Hazard Mitigation Alternatives
– A “request for technical assistance” form.
– A copy of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44, the Code of Federal Regulations
(44CFR), which defines the federal requirements for a local hazard mitigation
plan.
• The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the Hazard Mitigation
Plan Update, which includes the following key components for the planning area:
– The planning area risk assessment
– Goals and objectives
– Plan implementation and maintenance procedures
– Comprehensive review of alternatives
– County-wide initiatives.
Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
B-2
Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using
the template and instructions provided. Technical assistance can be provided upon
request by completing the request. This assistance may be provided by the point of
contact at Grant County Emergency Management or any other resource within the
Planning Partnership such as a member of the Steering Committee or a currently
participating City or Special Purposes District partner. The point of contact will
determine who will provide the technical assistance and the possible level of
assistance based on resources available at the time of the request.
• The new jurisdiction will be required to develop a public involvement strategy that
ensures the public’s ability to participate in the plan development process. At a
minimum, the new jurisdiction must make an attempt to solicit public opinion on
hazard mitigation at the onset of this linkage process and a minimum of one public
meeting to present their draft jurisdiction specific annex for comment, prior to
adoption by the governing body. The Planning Partnership will have resources
available to aid in the public involvement strategy. However, it will be the new
jurisdiction’s responsibility to implement and document this strategy for incorporation
into its annex. It should be noted that the Jurisdictional Annex templates do not
include a section for the description of the public process. This is because the
original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy that
covered the planning area described in Volume 1 of the plan. Since new partners
were not addressed by that strategy, they will have to initiate a new strategy, and
add a description of that strategy to their annex. For consistency, new partners are
encouraged to follow the public involvement format utilized by the initial planning
effort as described in Volume 1 of the plan.
• Once their public involvement strategy is completed and they have completed their
template, the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to Grant County
Emergency Management for a pre-adoption review to ensure conformance with the
plan format.
• The following will be reviewed:
– Documentation of Public Involvement strategy
– Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions
– Chosen initiatives are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of
the Planning Area Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
– A Designated point of contact
– A ranking of risk specific to the jurisdiction.
The point of contact may utilize members of the Steering Committee or other
resources to complete this review. All proposed linked annexes will be submitted to
the Steering Committee for review and comment prior to submittal to Washington
State Military Department, Emergency Management Division.
• Plans approved and accepted by the Steering Committee will be forwarded to
Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division for review
with a cover letter stating the forwarded plan meets local approved plan standards
and whether the plan is submitted with local adoption or for criteria met/plan not
adopted review.
• Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division reviews plans for
federal compliance. Non-Compliant plans are returned to the lead agency for
APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
B-3
correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with annotation as to
the adoption status.
• FEMA reviews the new jurisdiction’s plan in association with the approved plan to
ensure DMA compliance. FEMA notifies new jurisdiction of results of review with
copies to Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division
and approved planning authority.
• New jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to the State
through the approved plan lead agency.
• For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the
new jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan (if not already accomplished)
and forwards adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to Grant County Emergency
Management and the State.
• FEMA regional director notifies new jurisdiction governing authority of plan approval.
The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the regional plan with the commitment from the
new jurisdiction to participate in the ongoing plan implementation and maintenance.
DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP
The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two
ways. First, a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This
may be done because the partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a
different planning process for which it can gain eligibility. A partner that wishes to voluntarily
leave the partnership shall inform Grant County Emergency Management of this desire in
writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to
pursue this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to
avoid any period of being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act.
After receiving this notification, Grant County Emergency Management shall notify the State and
FEMA in writing that the partner in question is no longer covered by the Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update, and that the eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based
on this notification.
The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the
participation requirements specified in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided to
each partner at the beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation
procedures specified under chapter 7 in Volume 1 of the plan. Each partner agreed to these
terms by adopting the plan.
Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by Grant County Emergency
Management. The determination of whether a partner is meeting its participation requirements
will be based on the following parameters:
• Are progress reports being submitted annually by the specified time frames?
• Are partners notifying Grant County Emergency Management of changes in
designated points of contact?
• Are the partners supporting the Steering Committee by attending designated
meetings or responding to needs identified by the body?
Grant County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
B-4
• Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners
expectations package provided to them at the beginning of the process?
Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the
premise that a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to
reduce risk within the planning area. Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of
this effort. The following procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of
participation:
• The point of contact at Grant County Emergency Management will advise the
Steering Committee of this pending action and provide evidence or justification for
the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual progress
reports, failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Steering
Committee, failure to act on the partner’s action plan, or inability to reach designated
point of contact after a minimum of five attempts.
• The Steering Committee will review information provided by point of contact, and
determine action by a vote. The Steering Committee will invoke the voting process
established in the ground rules established during the formation of this body.
• Once the Steering Committee has approved an action, the point of contact will notify
the planning partner of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification
will outline the grounds for the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain
as a partner. This notification shall also clearly identify the ramifications of removal
from the partnership. The partner will be given 30 days to respond to the notification.
• Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to
respond to the notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal
discussed above.
• Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the
partnership, they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies
identified by the point of contact. This action plan shall be reviewed by the Steering
Committee to determine whether the actions are appropriate to rescind the action.
Those partners that satisfy the Steering Committee’s review will remain in the
partnership, and no further action is required.
• Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where
these actions have to be initiated more than once in a 5 year planning cycle.
MARCH 17, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
Appendix C
Jurisdictional Annex
Instructions and Templates for Municipalities
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
1
1.0 CITY/TOWN/COUNTY OF ________
1.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
1.2 Jurisdiction Profile
1.2.1 Location and Features
___[jurisdiction name]___ is in ___[general location description]___
The current boundaries generally extend from ___[describe]___, encompassing an area of ___[area in
square miles]___.
___[general description of key features]___
1.2.2 History
___[jurisdiction name]___ was incorporated in ___[date]___. ___[brief historical summary]___
1.2.3 Governing Body Format
___[general description]___.
The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; __[name of
oversight agency]__ will oversee its implementation.
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2
1.3 Current Trends
1.3.1 Population
According to ___[identify data source]___, the population of ___[jurisdiction name]___ as of ___[month
year]___ was ___[population]___ Since ___[year]___, the population has grown at an average annual
rate of ___[number]___ percent.
1.3.2 Development
__[DESCRIBE TRENDS IN GENERAL]__.
Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of
permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking
previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a
hazard within a community. Table 1-2 summarizes development trends in the performance period since
the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 1-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends.
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
Yes/No
If yes, give the estimated area annexed and
estimated number of parcels or structures.
Enter Response
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? Yes/No
If yes, describe land areas and dominant uses. Enter Response
If yes, who currently has permitting authority
over these areas?
Are any areas targeted for development or major redevelopment in the next five years? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe, including whether any of
the areas are in known hazard risk areas.
Enter Response
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Single Family __ __ __ __ __
Multi-Family __ __ __ __ __
Other __ __ __ __ __
Total __ __ __ __ __
Provide the number of new-construction permits
for each hazard area or provide a qualitative
description of where development has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: #
• Landslide: #
• High Liquefaction Areas: #
• Tsunami Inundation Area: #
• Wildfire Risk Areas: #
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
Enter Response
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
3
1.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate, or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-3.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-4.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-5.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-6.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-7.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-8.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-9.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-10.
Table 1-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, and Requirements
Building Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Zoning Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Subdivisions Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Stormwater Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Post-Disaster Recovery Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Real Estate Disclosure Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Growth Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Site Plan Review Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Environmental Protection Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
4
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Flood Damage Prevention Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Emergency Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Climate Change Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Other Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Planning Documents
Comprehensive Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Capital Facilities Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
How often is the plan updated? Enter Response
Comment: Enter Comment
Disaster Debris Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Floodplain or Watershed Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Stormwater Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Urban Water Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Economic Development Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Shoreline Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Forest Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Climate Action Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
5
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Public Health Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Other Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment: Enter Comment
Table 1-4. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes/No
If no, who does? If yes, which department? Enter Response
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard
area?
Yes/No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes/No
Table 1-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes/No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes/No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes/No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No
Other Yes/No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
6
Table 1-6. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Surveyors Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Emergency manager Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Grant writers Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Other Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Table 1-7. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes/No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
7
Table 1-8. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance.
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Enter Response
Who is your floodplain administrator? (Department/Position) Enter Response
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes/No
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last
amended?
Enter Response
Ordinance Number or Code Reference:
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum
requirements?
Meets/Exceeds
If exceeds, in what ways? Enter Response
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
Enter Response
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that
need to be addressed?
Yes/No
If so, state what they are. Enter Response
Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? Yes/No
If so, state what they are. Enter Response
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your
jurisdiction?
Yes/No
If no, state why. Enter Response
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to
support its floodplain management program?
Yes/No
If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Enter Response
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes/No
If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS Classification? Yes/No
If no, is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? Yes/No
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a Enter Response
What is the insurance in force? $_______
What is the premium in force? $_______
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a Enter Response
How many claims are still open or were closed without payment? Enter Response
What were the total payments for losses? $_______
Description of how the City implements the substantial improvement/substantial damage provisions of their
floodplain management ordinance
Describe:
a. According to FEMA statistics as of MONTH XX, 20XX.
Table 1-9. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code Yes/No Date
DUNS # Yes/No Date
Community Rating System Yes/No Date
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes/No Date
Public Protection Yes/No Date
Storm Ready Yes/No Date
Firewise Yes/No Date
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
8
Table 1-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
9
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough information is known to assign a
rating.
1.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant
information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such
integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.
Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress
reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of
hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
1.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and
the following other local plans and programs:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
10
1.6 Risk Assessment
1.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 1-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-11. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
1.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 1-12 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property, and the economy. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 1-12. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 High/Medium/Low
2 High/Medium/Low
3 High/Medium/Low
4 High/Medium/Low
5 High/Medium/Low
6 High/Medium/Low
1.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for this jurisdiction. Available
jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
11
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been
mitigated: XX
Other Noted Vulnerabilities
The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk
assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
1.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 1-13 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 1-13. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
1.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 1-14 lists the identified actions, which make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this
jurisdiction. Table 1-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-16 summarizes the mitigation
actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
12
Table 1-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency Estimated Cost
Sources of
Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response High HMGP, BRIC,
FMA
Medium-term
Action xxx-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances, and programs that dictate land use
decisions in the community, including ______________.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
New and Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
Action xxx-3—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
New and Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Medium-term
Action xxx-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain
management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
New and Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
Action xxx-5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change, including but not limited to
the following:
• _______.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
New and Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Medium-term
Action xxx-6—Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power, including
________.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, wildfire
Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Medium-term
Action xxx-7—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
13
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency Estimated Cost
Sources of
Funding Timelinea
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-8—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-9—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-10—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-11—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-12—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-13—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-14—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-15—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-16—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-17—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an extended timeframe.
Acronyms used here are defined at the beginning of this volume.
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
14
Table 1-15. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
xxx-1
xxx-2
xxx-3
xxx-4
xxx-5
xxx-6
xxx-7
xxx-8
Table 1-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Medium-Risk Hazards
Low-Risk Hazards
1.9 Public Outreach
Table 1-17 lists public outreach activities for this jurisdiction.
Table 1-17. Local Public Outreach.
Local Outreach Activity Date
Number of People
Involved
MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
15
1.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
• ___[jurisdiction name]___ Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full
capability assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• ___[jurisdiction name]___ Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage
prevention ordinance was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the
development of the mitigation action plan.
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
1.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section.
1.12 Additional Comments
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
1
Chapter Title
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your municipality (e.g., City of Pleasantville,
West County). Do not change the chapter number. Revise only the jurisdiction name. If your jurisdict
already been entered, verify that wording and spelling are correct; revise as needed.
Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Points of Contact
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of contact for your
jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction.
This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing
development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This
would be a person to contact should the primary point of
contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the
jurisdiction.
Note: Both of these contacts should match the contacts that
participate in this planning process. If you have changed the
primary or secondary contact, let the planning team know by
inserting a comment into the document.
Participating Planning Team
Populate Table 1-1 with the names of staff from your
jurisdiction who participated in preparing this annex or
otherwise contributed to the planning process for this hazard
mitigation plan.
Jurisdiction Profile
Provide information specific to your jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the examples provided below. This should
be information that will not be provided in the overall mitigation plan document.
Location and Features
EXAMPLE: The City of Canola is in the northwest portion of Basin County, along the Columbia River in eastern
Washington. It is almost 150 miles northeast of Mintville
generally extending north-south from State Route 1 to the Columbia River and east-west from River Road to East
Avenue. The City of Potatoes is to the north, unincorporated county is to the west, the City of Barley is to the
south, and the Columbia River is to the west
.
Canola is home to the University of Sugarbeet, Frozen Veggies, Inc., and the western portion of Columbia
National Wildlife Refuge. Significant geographic features include the Watery River, which flows southwest across
Who Should Be on the Local Mitigation Planning
Team
The Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team is
hazard mitigation plan. Team membership should
represent agencies with authority to regulate development
and enforce local ordinances or regulatory standards,
such as building/fire code enforcement, emergency
management, emergency services, floodplain
management, parks and recreation, planning/ community
development, public information, public works/
engineering, stormwater management, transportation, or
infrastructure.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
2
History
conomy and development, and note its year of incorporation, in a
statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: The City of Canola was incorporated in 1858. The area was settled during the wheat rush in the
1850s as a supply center for farmers. As the wheat rush died down, corn and potatoes became the area's major
economic resources. By 1913, the Canola Teachers College, a predecessor to today's University of Sugarbeet, was
founded. Recently, the presence of the university has come to shape Canola s population into a young and
educated demographic. In 1981 the City developed the Canola Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary, an environmentally
friendly sewage treatment enhancement system.
s almost doubled. Today it features
a commercial core in the center of the city, with mostly residential areas to the north and south, the university to
the west and the national park on the east.
Governing Body Format
ce elements and staffing, in a statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: The City of Canola is governed by a five-member city council. The City consists of six departments:
Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police, and the City Manager's Office.
The City has 13 commissions and task forces, which report to the City Council. The City currently employs a total
of 155 employees (full-time equivalent).
The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City Manager will oversee its
implementation.
Current Trends
Population
Provide the most current population estimate for your jurisdiction based on an official means of tracking (e.g., the U.S.
Census or state agency that develops population estimates). Describe the current estimate and recent population trends in
a statement similar to the example below.
EXAMPLE: According to Washington OFM, the population of Canola as of July 2020 was 17,280. Since 2010,
the population has grown at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent, though that rate is declining, with an annual
average of only 0.8 percent since 2015.
Development
development trends in a statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: Anticipated future development for the City of Canola is low to moderate, consisting primarily of
residential growth. Recent development has been mostly infill. There has been a focus on affordable housing and
a push for more secondary mother-in-law units. Future growth in the City will be managed as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. City actions, such as those relating to land use, annexations, zoning, subdivision
and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan.
Note:
• The portion of the table requesting the number of permits by year is specifically looking for development permits
for new construction. If your jurisdiction does not have the ability to differentiate between permit types, list the
-types.
• If your jurisdiction does not have the ability to track permits by hazard area, delete the bullet list of hazard areas
and insert a qualitative description of where development has occurred.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
3
Capability Assessment
Note that it is unlikely that one person will be able to complete all sections of the capability assessment alone. The
primary preparer will likely need to reach out to other departments within the local government for information. It
may be beneficial to provide these individuals with background information about this planning process, as input
from them will be needed again during Phase 3 of the annex development.
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Planning
requirement or planning document in each of the following columns:
• Local Authority
column. Note: If you enter yes, be sure to provide a comment with the appropriate code, ordinance or plan
and date of adoption.
• Other Jurisdiction Authority another agency (e.g., a state agency or special purpose district)
enforces or administers the identified item in a way that may impact your jurisdiction or if any state or federal
Note: If you
enter yes, be sure to provide a comment indicating the other agency and its relevant authority.
• State Mandated
Note: If you enter yes, be sure to provide a comment
describing the relevant state mandate.
• Integration Opportunity there are obvious ways that the code, ordinance or plan can be
coordinated with the hazard mitigation plan. Consider the following:
o
if any of the following are true:
✓ The item already addresses hazards and their impacts and should be updated to reflect new
information about risk from this hazard mitigation plan
✓ The item does not address hazards and their impacts but is due for an update in the next 5 years and
could be updated in a way that does address hazards and impacts
✓ The item identifies projects for implementation and these could be reviewed to determine if they can
be modified to help address hazard mitigation goals
✓ The item identifies projects for implementation and some of these should be considered for inclusion
in the hazard mitigation action plan for your jurisdiction
o
if your jurisdiction will develop the item over the next 5 years
later in the annex. You may wish to keep notes when asse ssing the Integration Opportunity or review
• Comments Enter the code number and adoption date for any local code indicated as being in place; provide
other comments as appropriate to describe capabilities for each entry. DO NOT OVERLOOK THIS STEP
Comprehensive
addition to completing the four columns indicating level of capability.
Development and Permit Capability
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
4
Fiscal Capability
prerequisites that may hinder your use of this resource.
Administrative and Technical Capability
department and position title. If you have contract support with these capabilit
the department row that this resource is provided through contract.
Education and Outreach Capability
C .
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
.
Community Classifications
whether your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction has earned under the
third and fourth columns if your jurisdiction is not participating. If you do not know your current classification, information
is available at the following websites:
• FIPS Code https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2018/demo/popest/2018-fips.html
• DUNS # https://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html
• Community Rating System https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/community-rating-system
• Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/iso-s-building-code-
effectiveness-grading-schedule-bcegs.html
• Public Protection Classification https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/
• Storm Ready https://www.weather.gov/stormready/communities
• Firewise http://www.firewise.org/usa-recognition-program/map-of-active-participants.aspx
• Tsunami Ready https://www.weather.gov/tsunamiready/communities
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, review all the above capability assessment tables and consider
including actions to provide a capability that your jurisdiction does not currently have, update a capability that your
jurisdiction does have, or implement an action that is recommended in an existing plan or program.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
5
Consider climate change impact concerns such as the following:
• Reduced snowpack
• Increased wildfires
• Sea level rise
• Inland flooding
• Threats to sensitive species
• Loss in agricultural productivity
• Public health and safety.
• High The capacity exists and is in use.
• Medium The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement.
• Low The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement.
• Unsure Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that you
complete this table with an internal planning team after reviewing the results of the other capability assessment tables.
Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning,
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is
used in hazard mitigation. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
• Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk reduction
and safety into the policies of other plans).
• Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into land use plans,
site plan review, emergency operations plans).
• Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital
improvement plan).
• Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation plans and
goals).
After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment tables, identify all plans and
programs that have already been integrated with the hazard mitigation plan, and those that offer opportunities for future
integration. The simplest way to do this is to review the Planning and Regulatory Capabilities table to see which items were
Existing Integration
Planning
includes specific projects that should be included as action items in the mitigation action plan. Consider listing items
Provide a brief description of how the plan or ordinance is integrated. Examples are as follows:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
6
• Capital Improvement Plan The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential
hazards. The City will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future
capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital
improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk
assessment.
• Building Code and Fire Code 21 International Building Codes incorporated local
modifications to account for the climatic, topographic and geographic conditions that exist in the City.
• Comprehensive Plan The general plan includes a landuse element that identifies where future growth will be
focused.
• Climate Action Plan
and adapting to likely impacts of climate change. These projects were reviewed to identify cross-planning initiates
that serve both adaptation and mitigation objectives.
Opportunities for Future Integration
Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
table and explain the process by which integration could occur. Examples follow:
• Zoning Code The City is conducting a comprehensive update to its zoning code. Additional mitigation and
abatement measures will be considered for incorporation into the code.
• Capital Improvement Projects Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration hazard
mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.
• Post-Disaster Recovery Plan The City does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as a
mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the goals and objectives identified in
the hazard mitigation plan.
, consider other
programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and management of hazard risk.
Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way mowing programs, erosion control or
stream maintenance programs, etc. Add any such programs to the integration discussion and provide a brief description
of how these programs manage (or could be adapted to manage) risk from hazards.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, a
should be reviewed and elements from them should be included in the action plan as appropriate.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
7
Risk Assessment
Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
at
has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it
caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major storms and
federally declared disasters. Refer to the table below that lists hazard events in the planning area as recognized by the
County, the state, and the federal government.
Table 1. Presidential Disaster Declarations for the Planning Area
Type of Event
FEMA, State, or Local Disaster # or
Declaration Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts on your jurisdiction.
Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate information or can provide a brief
description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to these events, refer to the NOAA storm events
database included in the toolkit. We recommend conducting a search for the name of your jurisdiction in order to identify
events with known impacts. Other potential sources of damage information include the following
• Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state
• Insurance claims data
• Newspaper archives
• Emergency management documents (general plan safety element, emergency response plan, etc.)
• Resident input.
If you do not have estimates for costs column or list a
brief description of the damage rather than a dollar value (e.g., Main Street closed as a result of flooding, downed trees
and residential damage). Note that tracking such damage is a valid and useful mitigation action if your jurisdiction does
not currently track such information.
Hazard Risk Ranking
Risk ranking identifies which hazards pose the greatest risk to the community, based on how likely it is for each hazard to
great an impact each hazard will have if it does occur (this is
jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and
therefore needs to rank risk for its own area. The risk ranking for each jurisdiction has been calculated in the Loss Matrix
spreadsheet included in the annex preparation toolkit. The ranking is on the basis of risk ranking scores for each hazard
that were calculated probability of occurrence and its potential impact on people, property and the
economy.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
8
The results for your jurisdiction in your Phase 3 annex
template. The hazard with the highest risk rating is listed at the top of table and was given a rank of 1; the hazard with the
second highest rating is listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ranking scores were given
the same rank. Hazards were assigned to or risk categories based on the risk ranking score. If you
wish to review the calculations in detail, the appendix at the end of these instructions describes the calculation
methodology that the spreadsheet uses.
Review the hazard risk ranking information that is included in your annex. If these results differ from what you know
based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking and risk categories based on this knowledge.
If you do so, indicate the reason for the change in your template. For example:
-using industries, such
as agriculture or manufacturing, so this hazard should be ranked as medium.
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess of $1,000
in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. In the space provided, the following information has been included in your annex
based on data provided by FEMA:
• The number of any FEMA-identified repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction.
• The number of any FEMA-identified severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction.
• The number (if any) of repetitive-loss or severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction that have been
mitigated. Mitigated for this exercise means that flood protection has been provided to the structure.
Other Noted Vulnerabilities
Review
public comments/input, then develop a few sentences that discuss specific hazard vulnerabilities. You do not need to
develop a sentence for every hazard, but identify a few issues you would like to highlight. Also list any known hazard
vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction that may not be apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided.
Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big help in
the development of your hazard mitigation action plan. The following are examples of vulnerabilities you could identify
through this exercise:
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, you will need to have at least one mitigation action for each
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan in Phase 3, if your jurisdiction has any repetitive loss properties, you
should strongly consider including a mitigation action that addresses mitigating these properties.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
9
• About 45 percent of the population lives in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area, where flood
insurance is generally not required.
• A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Smithburg Fault is estimated to produce nearly 1 million tons of structure
debris.
• Over the past 10 years, the jurisdiction has experienced more than $6 million in damage from severe storm events.
• More than 50 buildings are located in areas that would be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea level rise.
• The results of the public survey indicated that 40 percent of Smithburg residents would not be able to be self-
sufficient for 5 days following a major event.
• An urban drainage issue at a specific location results in localized flooding every time it rains.
• One area of the community frequently loses power due to a lack of tree maintenance.
• A critical facility, such as a police station, is not equipped with a generator.
• A neighborhood has the potential to have ingress and egress cut off as the result of a flood or earthquake (e.g. a
bridge is the only access).
• Substantial number of buildings in one area of the community are unreinforced masonry or soft-story
construction.
• An area along the river is eroding and threatening public and/or private property.
• A large visitor population that may not be aware of tsunami risk.
Status of Previous Plan Actions
Note that this section only applies to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved hazard
mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, remove this section from
your final annex.
All action items identified in prior mitigation plans must be reconciled in this update. Action items must all be marked as
ONE of the following; check the appropriate box (place an X) and provide information as follows:
• Completed If an action has been completed since the prior plan was prepared, check the box and
provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has been initiated and is an ongoing
program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed and note that it is ongoing in the
comments. If an action addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include in your action plan,
see the Carried Over to Plan Update bullet below.
• Removed If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be given. Lack of
funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer
available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible or
due to lack of If the wording and/or intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this
can be a reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be
discussed in the comments.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, consider including actions to address the jurisdiction-specific
vulnerabilities listed in this section.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
10
• Carried Over to Plan Update If an action is in progress, is ongoing, or has not been initiated and you would
Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation action plan for this update. If you
are carrying over an action to the update, include a comment describing any action that has been taken or
why the action was not taken (specifically, any barriers or obstacles that prevented the action from moving
forward or slowed progress). Leave the last column, in Update, blank at this point. This will be filled in
after completing the updated action plan in Phase 3.
Ensure that you have provided a status and a comment for each action.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
The hazard mitigation action plan is the heart of your jurisdictional annex. This is where you will identify the actions your
jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan.
Select Recommended Actions
All of the work that you have done thus far should provide you with ideas for actions. Throughout these instructions, green
selection of mitigation actions. The following sections describe how to consider these and other information sources to
develop a list of potential actions.
Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of actions:
• Select actions that are consistent with the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Identify actions where benefits exceed costs.
• Include any action that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing, regardless of grant eligibility.
• Know what is and is not grant-eligible under various federal grant programs (see the fact sheet on FEMA hazard
mitigation grant programs in the annex preparation toolkit and the table below).
Table 2. Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Eligibility by Action Type
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
11
Eligible Activities
HMGP
(Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program)
BRIC
(Building
Resilient
Infrastructure
and
Communities)
FMA
(Flood Mitigation
Assistance)
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation
Structure Elevation
Mitigation Reconstruction
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures
Generators
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities
Safe Room Construction
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences
Infrastructure Retrofit
Soil Stabilization
Wildland fire Mitigation
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement
Advance Assistance
5 Percent Initiative Projects*
Aquifer and Storage Recovery**
Flood Diversion and Storage**
Floodplain and Stream Restoration**
Green Infrastructure**
Miscellaneous/Other**
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Technical Assistance
Management Costs
* FEMA allows increasing the 5% initiative amount under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program up to 10% for a
presidential major disaster declaration. The additional 5% initiative funding can be used for activities that promote
disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be
adopted or an improved Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.
** Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible projects
will be approved provided funding is available.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
12
Material Previously Developed for This Annex
Capability Assessment Section Planning and Regulatory Capability Table, Fiscal Capability Table,
Administrative and Technical Capability Table, Education and Outreach Table, and Community Classification
Table
Review these tables and consider the following:
• For any capability that you do not currently have, consider whether your jurisdiction should have this capability. If
so, consider including an action to develop/acquire the capability.
• For any capability that you do currently have, consider whether this capability can be leveraged to increase or
improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction.
• If any capabilities listed in the Planning and Regulatory Capabilities table have not been updated in more than 10
years, consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate, incorporate hazard mitigation
principles or information obtained in the risk assessment.
• Consider including actions that are identified in other plans and programs (capital improvement plans, strategic
plans, etc.) as actions in this plan.
Capability Assessment Section National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Table
Review the table and consider the following:
• If you have no certified floodplain managers and you have flood risk, consider adding an action to provide key
staff members with training to obtain certification.
• If your flood damage prevention was last updated in or before 2004, you should identify an action to update your
ordinance to ensure it is compliant with current NFIP requirements.
• If you have any outstanding NFIP compliance issues, be sure to add an action to address them.
• If flood hazard maps do not adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction, consider actions to request
new mapping or conduct studies.
• If you wish to begin to participate in CRS or you already to participate and would like to improve your
classification, consider this as an action.
• If the number of flood insurance polices in your jurisdiction is low relative to the number of structures in the
floodplain, consider an action that will promote flood insurance in your jurisdiction.
Capability Assessment Section Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Table
Consider your responses to this section:
• For criteria that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating (see adaptive capacity
portion of the mitigation best practices catalog).
• For criteria you listed as high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or
continue to improve this capacity.
• For criteria that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways you could improve your understanding of
this capacity (see mitigation best practices and adaptive capacity catalog).
Integration Review Section
Review the items you identified in this section and consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance
etc. is and how it will be integrated. For items that address land use, include them in the prepopulated action in your
template that reads as follows:
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions
in the community, including ______________.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
13
Risk Ranking Section
You must identify at least one mitigation action that is clearly defined and actionable (i.e. not a preparedness or response
action) for every hazard that is
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section
Review the vulnerability issues that you identified in this section and consider actions to address them (see mitigation best
practices catalog). Two examples are shown in the table below.
Table 3. Example Actions to Address Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
About 45 percent of the population lives in the
0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area
where flood insurance is generally not required.
Implement an annual public information initiative that targets residents in the
0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area. Provide information on the
availability of relatively low cost flood insurance policies.
An urban drainage issue results in localized
flooding every time it rains.
Replace undersized culverts that are contributing to localized flooding. Priority
areas include:
• The corner of Main Street and 1st Street
• Old Oak subdivision.
Status of Previous Plan Actions Section
If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation plan, be sure to include any actions that were identified as
Other Sources
Mitigation Best Practices Catalog
A catalog that includes best practices identified by FEMA and other agencies, as well as recommendations from the
steering committee and other stakeholders, is included in your toolkit. Review the catalog and identify actions your
jurisdiction should consider for its action plan.
Public Input
Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included in your toolkit.
Common Actions for All Partners
The following six actions have been prepopulated in your annex template; these six actions should be included in every
annex and should not be removed:
• Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas,
prioritizing those structures that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high or medium ranked
hazard.
• Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions
within the community.
• Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
• Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain
management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
o Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
o Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
14
o Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
• Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change.
• Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back-up power.
In addition, the core planning team recommends that every planning partner strongly consider the following actions:
• Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks,
preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation
and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
• Develop and/or update plans that support or enhance continuity of operations following disasters.
The specifics of all these common actions should be adjusted as needed for the particulars of each community.
Complete the Table
Complete the tabl
include in the plan:
• Enter the action number (see box on next page) and description. If the action is carried over from your
previous hazard mitigatio
Phase 1 and enter the new action number in the column labeled Action # in Update.
• Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for new and/or existing assets.
• Identify the specific hazards the action will mitigate (note: you must list each hazard by name; simply indicating
all hazards is not deemed acceptable).
• Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the action addresses (see toolkit).
• Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action; you must identify the position, office, department or
agency responsible for implementing/administrating the identified mitigation actions. This will most likely be a
department within your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one
department as responsible for the action, clearly identify one as the lead agency and list the others in the
supporting agenc column.
• Enter an estimated cost in dollars if known;
,,
determined for the prioritization process described
in the following section.
• Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a
grant, include the grant-providing agency as well
as funding sources for any required cost share.
Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer
to the table on page 10 of these instructions mitigation assistance grant
programs.
• -existing action or new action within 1 year)ium-
-within 10 years phased project with an extended timeframe)
Mitigation Action Priority
Mitigation Action Priority
• Action #Indicate the action number from the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix table.
• # of Objectives Met Enter the number of objectives the action will meet.
Action Numbering
Actions are to be numbered using the three-letter code
for your jurisdiction that is already listed in the action
table.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
15
• Benefits
o High Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.
o Medium Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action
will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.
o Low Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
• Cost Enter
o High Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue
through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
o Medium The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of
the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
o Low The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an
ongoing existing program.
• Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?
rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high
wer than the cost rating
(medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.)
• Is the Action Grant-Eligible?FEMA hazard mitigation grant
programs in the annex preparation toolkit and the table on page 10 of these instructions.
• Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?
currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as
grants?
• Implementation Priority
o 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- to medium-term (1 to 5 years).
o 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 medium-term (1 to 5
years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is
secured.
o 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 may be eligible for grant funding from
programs that have not yet been identified.
• Grant Pursuit Priority
o 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.
o 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.
o Low Priority An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.
Actions identified as high-grant-pursuit priority actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when grant funding
opportunities arise.
Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify an action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for high
priorities, a note indicating so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
16
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
In ,for each combination of hazard type and mitigation type, enter the
numbers of all recommended actions that address that hazard type and can be categorized as that mitigation type. The
mitigation types 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.
• 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 & 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 Resilience 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, such as sea-level
rise or urban heat island effect.
• 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.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. This table must show at
one action for each mitigation type, but this is not required.
An example of a completed s provided below. Note that an action can be more
than one mitigation type.
Sample Completed Table Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Hazard Type
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
&
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilienc
e
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 EX-1, 6 EX-4, 6 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Medium-Risk Hazards
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
17
Hazard Type
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
&
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilienc
e
Community
Capacity
Building
Flooding EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7
EX-1, 6, 7 EX-4, 6 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-6 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Landslide EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Low-Risk Hazards
Severe Weather EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4 EX-8, 9, 11 EX-8, 7 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Wildfire EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4, 9 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Public Outreach
FEMA
of the plan. These may include public meetings, a storymap, surveys, etc. If individual jurisdictions want to have a more
robust outreach for their local community, the public outreach table in each annex may be used to memorialize those local
efforts.
This table should record local public outreach efforts made by your jurisdiction to inform the community of the plan update
process. Examples may include local surveys on hazard awareness/preparedness, social media blasts, press releases, and
outreach to local groups (CERT, senior citizen organizations, etc.) This section is optional.
Information Sources Used for this Annex
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. The sources used for
Phases 1 and 2 should have been entered previously. List any additional sources used for the preparation of the Phase 3
annex. Review to ensure that all materials used in all three phases are identified. Providing this information is a requirement
to pass the state and FEMA review process.
Future Needs To Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its
vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates.
This section is optional.
Additional Comments
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this
template. This section is optional.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
18
APPENDIX RISK RANKING CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
provided with the annex preparation toolkit. The risk-ranking for each hazard assessed its probability of occurrence and its
potential impact on people, property, and the economy. Refer to the Loss Matrix spreadsheet in order to follow along.
Probability of Occurrence
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a hazard
event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future probability of
occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if your jurisdiction has
experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3
under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability
of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each hazard was assigned a probability factor as
follows:
• High Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
• Medium Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
• Low Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
• None There is no exposure to the hazard and no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0)
Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the
economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3,
impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1.
Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
• People Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The
degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and
consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when
a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
o High 25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
o Medium 10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
o Low 9 percent 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 are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard
event:
o High 25 percent or more of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
o Medium 10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
o Low 9 percent or less of the total replacement value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
o No impact None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
19
• 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
replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildland fire and landslide,
vulnerability may be considered to be the same or a portion of exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools
specific to those hazards.
➢ High Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total replacement value (Impact Factor =
3)
➢ Medium Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 9 percent of the total replacement value (Impact
Factor = 2)
➢ Low Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 1)
➢ No impact No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).
Impacts on People
The percent of the total population exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain)
can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the green highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined
extent and location the entire population or a portion of the population is considered to be exposed, depending on the
area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to the health and safety of individuals are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on Property
The percent of the total value exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can
be found in the loss estimate matrix in the blue highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent
and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to be exposed. For the drought hazard,
it is common for jurisdictions to list
drought, but impacts to structures are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on the Economy
The loss estimates for each hazard of concern that was modeled (i.e. dam failure, flood, earthquake) can be found in the
loss estimate matrix in the purple highlighted column. For those hazards that have a defined extent and location, but do
not have modelled loss results, loss estimates can be the same as exposure or a portion thereof. For example, a large
percentage of the building stock may be exposed to landslide or wildland fire risk, but it would not be expected that one
event that resulted in loss to all exposed structures would occur. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and
location, exposure is based on the hazard type.
Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted
impact factors for people, property and the economy:
Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy}
MARCH 17, 2023 | GRANT COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2
Appendix D
Jurisdictional Annex
Instructions and Templates for Districts
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
1
1.0 DISTRICT NAME
1.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in
Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.
Name Title
1.2 Jurisdiction Profile
1.2.1 Overview
Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions.
The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; __[name of
oversight agency]__ will oversee its implementation.
All fire districts should include the following sentence (non-fire special purpose districts should delete
the sentence):
The District participates/does not participate in the Public Protection Class Rating System and currently
has a rating of #.
1.2.2 Service Area
The District service area covers ___[area in square miles]___, serving a population of _ population_.
1.2.3 Assets
Table 1-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
2
Table 1-2. Special Purpose District Assets.
Asset Value
Property
_number_ acres of land $_value_
Equipment
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
Total: $_value_
Critical Facilities
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
Total: $_value_
1.3 Current Trends
Insert summary description of service trends.
1.4 Capability Assessment
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation
strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the
components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate, or
integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were
identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of
Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation
actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-3.
An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-4.
An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Error! Reference source
not found..
An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-6.
Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-7.
The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-8.
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
3
Table 1-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability.
Plan, Study, or Program
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program, or plan
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program, or plan
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program, or plan
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program, or plan
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program, or plan
Table 1-4. Fiscal Capability.
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes/No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes/No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes/No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No
Other Yes/No
If yes, specify: Enter Response
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
4
Table 1-5. Administrative and Technical Capability.
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Surveyors Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Emergency manager Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Grant writers Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Other Yes/No
If yes, Department/Position: Enter Response
Table 1-6. Education and Outreach Capability.
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes/No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related
information?
Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No
If yes, briefly describe: Enter Response
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
5
Table 1-7. Community Classifications.
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code Yes/No Date
DUNS # Yes/No Date
Community Rating System Yes/No Date
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes/No Date
Public Protection Yes/No Date
Storm Ready Yes/No Date
Firewise Yes/No Date
Table 1-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change.
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-
making processes
High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
6
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
Local ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment: Enter Comment
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement; Low =
Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure = Not enough information is known to assign a
rating.
1.5 Integration Review
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other
relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from
those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in
place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the
end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process
described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation
actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.
1.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and
the following other local plans and programs:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation
plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration
opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or
enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do
so in the future:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
7
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a
mitigation action to include in the action plan presented in this annex.
1.6 Risk Assessment
1.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
Table 1-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this
jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this
jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-9. Past Natural Hazard Events.
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
1.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 1-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan
provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an
assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people,
property, and district operations. Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.
Table 1-10. Hazard Risk Ranking.
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 High/Medium/Low
2 High/Medium/Low
3 High/Medium/Low
4 High/Medium/Low
5 High/Medium/Low
6 High/Medium/Low
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
8
1.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of
concern. The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results
of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan
presented in this annex.
1.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions
Table 1-11 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 1-11. Status of Previous Plan Actions.
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check
if Yes
Action # in
Update
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
Insert Action Number and Text
Comment: Enter Comment
1.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table 1-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table
1-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of
concern and mitigation type.
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
9
Table 1-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency Estimated Cost
Sources of
Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas,
prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response High HMGP, BRIC,
FMA
Medium-term
Action xxx-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
New and Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Medium-term
Action xxx-3—Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power, including
________.
Hazards
Mitigated:
Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, wildfire
Existing Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-4—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-5—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-6—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-7—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
Action xxx-8—Description
Hazards
Mitigated:
Enter Response
Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response Enter Response
a. 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. On-going = phased project that will have an extended timeframe.
Acronyms used here are defined at the beginning of this volume.
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
10
Table 1-13. Mitigation Action Priority.
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 1-14. Analysis of Mitigation Actions.
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Medium-Risk Hazards
Low-Risk Hazards
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
1.9 Public Outreach
Table 1-15 lists public outreach activities for this jurisdiction.
Table 1-15. Local Public Outreach.
Local Outreach Activity Date
Number of People
Involved
DISTRICT TEMPLATE
11
1.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide
information for this annex.
<INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
<INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
<INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the
identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development
of the mitigation action plan.
<INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
1.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section.
1.12 Additional Comments
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
1
Chapter Title
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your district (e.g. West County Fire Protection
District #1, Johnsonville Flood Protection District). Do not change the chapter number. Revise only the jurisdiction name. If
Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Points of Contact
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of contact for your
jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the annex for your jurisdiction.
This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing
development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact
be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.
participate in this planning process. If you have changed the primary or secondary contact, let the planning team know by
inserting a comment into the document.
Participating Planning Team
Populate Table 1-1 with the names of staff from your jurisdiction who participated in preparing this annex or otherwise
contributed to the planning process for this hazard mitigation plan.
Jurisdiction Profile
Overview
Provide a brief summary description of the following:
• The purpose of the jurisdiction
• The date of inception
• The type of organization
• The number of employees
• Funding sources
• The type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority.
This should be information that is specific to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall, planning area-wide
mitigation plan document. Provide a statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: The Johnsonville Community Services District is a special district created in 1952 to provide water and
sewer service. A five-member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for
the adoption of this plan; the General Manager will oversee its implementation. The District currently employs a
staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds.
Service Area
Provide a brief description of the following:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
2
• s are and an approximation of how many are currently served
• The area served, in square miles
• The geographic extent of the service area
This should be information that is specific to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall, planning area-wide
mitigation plan document. Provide a statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: The Johnsonville Community Services District serves unincorporated areas of Jones County east of the
City of Smithburg, including the communities of Johnsonville, Creeks Corner, Jones Hill, Fields Landing, King
Salmon, and Freshwater. The current total service area is 3.3 square miles. As of April 30, 2020, the District
serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections.
Assets
List District-owned assets in the categories shown on the table (and described in the sections below). Include an
approximate value for each asset and a subtotal value for identified assets in each category.
If District GIS data files are available, please send with your completed Phase 1. The files should include GIS data for the
critical facilities and infrastructure that are identified in the assets table, including the name of the facility and what it is
Property
Provide an approximate value for any land owned by the District.
Equipment
List equipment owned by the District that is used in times of emergency or that, if incapacitated, could severely impact the
service area (vehicles, generators, pumps, etc.). Provide an approximate replacement value for each item. Equipment of
-
mileage of pipeline under this category.
Critical Facilities
List District-owned facilities that are vital to maintain services to the service area. Include the address of each facility.
Provide an approximate replacement value for each line. Critical facilities are generally defined as facilities owned by the
District that are critical to District operations and to public health or safety and that are especially important following
hazard events, including but not limited to the following:
• Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store hazardous materials (highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic
and/or water-reactive materials)
• Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing facilities likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to
avoid death or injury during a natural hazard event
• Mass gathering facilities that may be used as evacuation shelters (such as schools or community centers)
• Transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges and airports that provide sources for evacuation before,
during and after natural hazard events
• Police stations, fire stations, government facilities, vehicle equipment and storage facilities, and emergency
operation centers that are needed for response activities before, during and after a natural hazard event
• Public utility facilities such as drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater systems that are vital to providing
normal services to damaged areas before, during and after natural hazard events.
The table below shows an example of assets to be listed in this section.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
3
Sample Completed Table Special District Assets
Asset Value
Property
11.5 Acres $5,750,000
Equipment
Total length of pipe 40 miles ( $1.32 million per mile X 40 miles) $52,800,000
4 Emergency Generators $250,000
Total: $53,050,000
Critical Facilities
Administrative Buildings 357 S. Jones Street $2,750,000
Philips Pump Station 111 Fifth Avenue N. $377,000
Total: $3,127,000
NOTE: Placeholders in the table of assets request ADDRESSES for critical facilities. These addresses will not be included
in the final published annex, but are needed in order to perform risk mapping and risk analysis for the hazard mitigation
plan. Include the addresses in the table if convenient. If not, then provide a separate document listing all critical facilities
and addresses for use in development of the hazard mitigation plan.
Current Trends
Provide a brief description of previous growth trends in the service area and anticipated future increase or decrease in
services (if applicable). This should be information that is specific to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall,
planning area-wide mitigation plan document. Provide a statement similar to the example below:
EXAMPLE: The Johnsonville Community Services District originally was formed to serve only the Johnsonville
area. The D
customers have increased by 3 percent since 2010. Population in the service area is not projected to change
significantly over the next 10 years, and the District has no plans to expand its service area.
Capability Assessment
Note that it is unlikely that one person will be able to complete all sections of the capability assessment alone. The
primary preparer will likely need to reach out to other departments within the local government for information.
Planning and Regulatory Capability
List any federal, state, local or district ordinances, plans, or policies that apply to your jurisdiction and relate to hazard
mitigation. Provide the date of last update and any comments as appropriate. The table below shows an example of items
to be listed in this section.
Sample Completed Table Planning and Regulatory Capability
Plan, Study or Program Date of Most Recent Update Comment
District Design Standards 2010
Capital Improvement Program Updated annually covers 5 year timeframe
Emergency Operations Plan 2000
Facility Maintenance Manual 1990
State Building Code 2016
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
4
Division of State Architects Review of all building and site design
features is required prior to construction
Fiscal Capability
Complete the table titled
or
prerequisites that may hinder your use of this resource.
Administrative and Technical Capability
the department row that this resource is provided through contract.
Education and Outreach Capability
Community Classifications
Complete the table title
whether your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction has earned under the
third and fourth columns if your jurisdiction is not participating. If you do not know your current classification, information
is available at the following websites:
• FIPS Code https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2018/demo/popest/2018-fips.html
• DUNS # https://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html
• Community Rating System https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/community-rating-system
• Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/iso-s-building-code-
effectiveness-grading-schedule-bcegs.html
• Public Protection Classification https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/
• Storm Ready https://www.weather.gov/stormready/communities
• Firewise http://www.firewise.org/usa-recognition-program/map-of-active-participants.aspx
• Tsunami Ready https://www.weather.gov/tsunamiready/communities
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Consider climate change impact concerns such as the following:
• Reduced snowpack
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, review all the above capability assessment tables and consider
including actions to provide a capability that your jurisdiction does not currently have, update a capability that your
jurisdiction does have, or implement an action that is recommended in an existing plan or program.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
5
• Increased wildfires
• Sea level rise
• Inland flooding
• Threats to sensitive species
• Loss in agricultural productivity
• Public health and safety
• High The capacity exists and is in use.
• Medium The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement.
• Low The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement.
• Unsure Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that you
complete this table with an internal planning team after reviewing the results of the other capability assessment tables.
Integration Review
mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard
mitigation. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
• Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk reduction
and safety into the policies of other plans).
• Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into emergency
operations plans).
• Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital
improvement plan).
• Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation plans and
goals).
After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment tables, identify all plans and
programs that have already been integrated with the hazard mitigation plan, and those that offer opportunities for future
integration.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN INPUT
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, review all the adaptive capacity criteria and consider including
actions to improve the rating for those rated medium or low, to make use of the capacity for those rated high, or to
acquire additional information for those rated unsure.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
6
Existing Integration
In the highlighted bullet list, provide a brief description of integrated plans or ordinances and how each is integrated.
Consider listing items marked as
ongoing actions. Examples are as follows:
• Capital Improvement Plan The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential
hazards. The District will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future
capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital
improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk
assessment.
• Emergency Operations Plan The results of the risk assessment were used in the development of the emergency
operations plan.
• Facilities Plan The results of the risk assessment and mapped hazard areas are used in facility planning for the
District. Potential sites are reviewed for hazard risks, and appropriate mitigation measures are considered in
building and site design.
Opportunities for Future Integration
List any plans or programs that offer the potential for future integration and describe the process by which integration will
occur. Examples follow:
• Capital Improvement Projects Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration hazard
mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.
• Post-Disaster Recovery Plan The District does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as a
mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the mitigation goals and objectives
identified in the mitigation plan.
Consider other programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and management of
hazard risk. Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way mowing programs, erosion
control or stream maintenance programs, etc. Add any such programs to the integration discussion and provide a brief
description of how these program manage (or could be adapted to manage) risk from hazards.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN INPUT
should be considered for inclusion in the action plan.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
category should be reviewed and elements from them should be included in the action plan as appropriate.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
7
Risk Assessment
Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History
In the
has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it
caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major storms and
federally declared disasters. Refer to the table below that lists hazard events in the planning area as recognized by the
County, the state, and the federal government.
Table 1. Presidential Disaster Declarations for the Planning Area
Type of Event FEMA, State, or Local Disaster # or
Declaration
Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
Insert event type Date $
We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts on your jurisdiction.
Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate information or can provide a brief
description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to these events, refer to the NOAA storm events
database included in the toolkit. We recommend conducting a search for the name of your jurisdiction in order to identify
events with known impacts. Other potential sources of damage information include the following
• Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state
• Insurance claims data
• Newspaper archives
• Emergency management documents (general plan safety element, emergency response plan, etc.)
• Resident input.
brief description of the damage rather than a dollar value (e.g., Main Street closed as a result of flooding, downed trees
and residential damage). Note that tracking such damage is a valid and useful mitigation action if your jurisdiction does
not currently track such information.
Hazard Risk Ranking
Risk ranking identifies which hazards pose the greatest risk to the community, based on how likely it is for each hazard to
great an impact each hazard will have if it does occur (this is
therefore needs to rank risk for its own area. Risk rankings for cities and the county have
ranking scores for
urrence and its potential impact on people,
property and the economy.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
8
The risk ranking methodology used for cities and counties is not usable for special-purpose districts because the risk-
related mapping generally does not align with the boundaries of districts. To rank risk for your District, use the following
procedure:
• Find the risk ranking scores in the Loss Matrix spreadsheet for the county
overall and for any cities whose area overlaps that of your District.
• For each hazard, generate a risk ranking score for your District by calculating the average of the scores for those
other jurisdictions.
• Rank the hazards based on those average scores:
o Assign the rank of 1 to the hazard with the highest risk ranking score, the rank of 2 to the hazard with the
second highest ranking score; and so on.
o Assign the same rank to any two hazards with equal risk ranking scores
• If the resulting ranking differs from what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, alter the
scores and ranking as needed based on this knowledge.
• Assign each hazard to the risk category of :
o Low for scores of 0 to 15
o Medium for scores of 16 to 30
o High for scores greater than 30
Enter the res
with 1 at the top of the table.
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
R t
public comments/input, then develop a few sentences that discuss specific hazard vulnerabilities. You do not need to
develop a sentence for every hazard, but identify a few issues you would like to highlight. Also list any known hazard
vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction that may not be apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided.
Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big help in
the development of your hazard mitigation action plan. The following are examples of vulnerabilities you could identify
through this exercise:
• One significant District asset is not equipped with a generator and four District buildings are unreinforced
masonry or soft-story construction
• Over the past 10 years, the jurisdiction has experienced more than $1 million in damage to critical assets from
severe storm events.
• 17 critical assets are in areas that would be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea level rise.
• An area along the river is eroding and threatening a District-owned treatment facility.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan in Phase 3, consider including actions to address the jurisdiction-
specific vulnerabilities listed in this section.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan in Phase 3, you will need to have at least one mitigation action for
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
9
Status of Previous Plan Actions
Note that this section applies only to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved hazard
mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, remove this section from
your final annex.
mitigation plan. Each action item must be marked as ONE of the options below by checking the appropriate box (place an
X) and providing the following information:
• Completed
provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has been initiated and is an ongoing
program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed and note that it is ongoing in the
comments. If an action addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include in your action plan,
se
• Removed If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be given. Lack of
funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer
available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible or
If the wording and/or intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this
can be a reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be
discussed in the comments.
• Carried Over to Plan Update If an action is in progress, is ongoing, or has not been initiated and you would
Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation action plan for this update. If you
are carrying over an action to the update, include a comment describing any action that has been taken or
why the action was not taken (specifically, any barriers or obstacles that prevented the action from moving
after completing the updated action plan in Phase 3.
Ensure that you have provided a status and a comment for each action.
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
The hazard mitigation action plan is the heart of your jurisdictional annex. This is where you will identify the actions your
jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan.
Select Recommended Actions
All of the work that you have done thus far should provide you with ideas for actions. Throughout these instructions, green
considered in the
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Input
When preparing the hazard mitigation action plan, all action items from your jurisdictio
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
10
selection of mitigation actions. The following sections describe how to consider these and other information sources to
develop a list of potential actions.
Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of actions:
• Select actions that are consistent with the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Identify actions where benefits exceed costs.
• Include any action that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing, regardless of grant eligibility.
• Know what is and is not grant-eligible under various federal grant programs (see the fact sheet on FEMA hazard
mitigation grant programs in the toolkit and the table on the next page).
Material Previously Developed for This Annex
Capability Assessment Section Planning and Regulatory Capability Table, Fiscal Capability Table,
Administrative and Technical Capability Table, and Education and Outreach Table
Review these tables and consider the following:
• For any capability that you do not currently have, consider whether your jurisdiction should have this capability. If
so, consider including an action to develop/acquire the capability.
• For any capability that you do currently have, consider whether this capability can be leveraged to increase or
improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction.
• If any items listed in the Planning and Regulatory Capabilities table have not been updated in more than 10 years,
consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate, incorporate hazard mitigation
principles or information obtained in the risk assessment.
• Consider including actions that are identified in other plans and programs (capital improvement plans, strategic
plans, etc.) as actions in this plan.
Capability Assessment Section Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Table
Consider your responses to this section:
• For criteria that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating (see adaptive capacity
portion of the mitigation best practices catalog).
• For criteria you listed as high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or
continue to improve this capacity.
• For criteria that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways you could improve your understanding of
this capacity (see mitigation best practices and adaptive capacity catalog).
Integration Review Section
Review the items you identified in this section and consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance
etc. is and how it will be integrated.
Risk Ranking Section
You must identify at least one mitigation action that is clearly defined and actionable (i.e. not a preparedness or response
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section
Review the vulnerability issues that you identified in this section and consider actions to address them (see mitigation best
practices catalog).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
11
Status of Previous Plan Actions Section
If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation plan, be sure to include any actions that were identified as
Table 2. Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Eligibility by Action Type
Eligible Activities
HMGP
(Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program)
BRIC
(Building Resilient
Infrastructure and
Communities)
FMA
(Flood Mitigation
Assistance)
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation
Structure Elevation
Mitigation Reconstruction
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures
Generators
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings
and Facilities
Safe Room Construction
Infrastructure Retrofit
Soil Stabilization
Wildfire Mitigation
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement
Advance Assistance
5 Percent Initiative Projects*
Aquifer and Storage Recovery**
Flood Diversion and Storage**
Floodplain and Stream Restoration**
Green Infrastructure**
Miscellaneous/Other**
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Technical Assistance
Management Costs
* FEMA allows increasing the 5% initiative amount under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program up to 10% for a
presidential major disaster declaration. The additional 5% initiative funding can be used for activities that promote
disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be
adopted or an improved Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.
** Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible projects
will be approved provided funding is available.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
12
Other Sources
Mitigation Best Practices Catalog
A catalog that includes best practices identified by FEMA and other agencies, as well as recommendations from the
steering committee and other stakeholders, is included in your toolkit. Review the catalog and identify actions your
jurisdiction should consider for its action plan.
Public Input
Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included in your toolkit.
Common Actions for All Partners
The following three actions have been prepopulated in your annex template; these three actions should be included in
every annex and should not be removed:
• Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas,
prioritizing those structures that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high or medium ranked
hazard.
• Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
• Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back-up power.
In addition, the core planning team recommends that every planning partner strongly consider the following actions:
• Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change.
• Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks,
preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation
and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
• Develop and/or update plans that support or enhance continuity of operations following disasters.
The specifics of all these common actions should be adjusted as needed for the particulars of each community.
Complete the Table
for all the actions you have identified and would like to include in
the plan:
• Enter the action number (see box at right) and
description. If the action is carried over from your
Phase 1 and enter the new action number in the column label
• Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for new and/or existing assets.
• Identify the specific hazards the action will mitigate (note: you must list each hazard by name; simply indicating
).
• Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the action addresses (see toolkit).
• Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action; you must identify the position, office, department or
agency responsible for implementing/administrating the identified mitigation actions. This will most likely be a
department within your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one
department as responsible for the action, clearly identify one as the lead agency and list the others in the
Action Numbering
Actions are to be numbered using a code that
is already within your annex.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
13
•
prioritization process described in the following section.
• Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a grant, include the grant-providing agency as well as funding
sources for any required cost share.
Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer to the
table on page 11 of these instructions for project eligibility fo
programs.
• -existing action or new action within 1 year)-
-within 10 years phased project with an extended timeframe)
Mitigation Action Priority
• Action #Indicate the action number from the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix table.
• # of Objectives Met Enter the number of objectives the action will meet.
• Benefits
o High Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.
o Medium Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action
will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.
o Low Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
• Cost
o High Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue
through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
o Medium The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of
the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
o Low The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an
ongoing existing program.
• Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?Ent
rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high
enefit rating is lower than the cost rating
(medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.)
• Is the Action Grant-Eligible?
programs in the annex preparation toolkit and the table on page 11 of these instructions.
• Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?
currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as
grants?
• Implementation Priority Enter
o 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- to medium-term (1 to 5 years).
o 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 medium-term (1 to 5
years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is
secured.
o 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 may be eligible for grant funding from
programs that have not yet been identified.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
14
• Grant Pursuit Priority
o 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.
o 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.
o Low Priority An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.
Actions identified as high-grant-pursuit priority actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when grant funding
opportunities arise.
Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify an action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for high
priorities, a note indicating so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
each combination of hazard type and mitigation type, enter the
numbers of all recommended actions that address that hazard type and can be categorized as that mitigation type. The
mitigation types 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.
• 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 & 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 Resilience 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, such as sea-level
rise or urban heat island effect.
• 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.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. This table must show at
at least
one action for each mitigation type, but this is not required.
Note that an action can be more
than one mitigation type.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
15
Sample Completed Table Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Hazard
Type
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
6
EX-1, 6 EX-4, 6 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Medium-Risk Hazards
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
7
EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9
Flooding EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7
EX-1, 6, 7 EX-4, 6 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-6 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Landslide EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
7
EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Low-Risk Hazards
Severe
Weather
EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
7
EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4 EX-8, 9, 11 EX-8, 7 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Wildfire EX-2, 3, 4, 5,
7
EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4, 9 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9,
10
Public Outreach
of the plan. These may include public meetings, a StoryMap, surveys, etc. If individual jurisdictions want to have a more
robust outreach for their local community, the public outreach table in each annex may be used to memorialize those local
efforts.
This table should record local public outreach efforts made by your jurisdiction to inform the community of this hazard
mitigation plan update process. Examples may include local surveys on hazard awareness/preparedness, social media
blasts, press releases, and outreach to local groups (CERT, senior citizen organizations, etc.) This section is optional.
Information Sources Used for this Annex
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. The sources used for
Phases 1 and 2 should have been entered previously. List any additional sources used for the preparation of the Phase 3
annex. Review to ensure that all materials used in all three phases are identified. Providing this information is a requirement
to pass the state and FEMA review process.
Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its
vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates.
This section is optional.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
16
Additional Comments
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this
template. This section is optional.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
17
APPENDIX RISK RANKING CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
provided with the annex preparation toolkit. The risk-ranking for each hazard assessed its probability of occurrence and its
potential impact on people, property, and the economy. Refer to the Loss Matrix spreadsheet in order to follow along.
Probability of Occurrence
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a hazard
event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future probability of
occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if your jurisdiction has
experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3
under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability
of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each hazard was assigned a probability factor as
follows:
• High Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
• Medium Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
• Low Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
• None There is no exposure to the hazard and no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0)
Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the
economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3,
impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1.
Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
• People Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The
degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and
consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when
a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
o High 25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
o Medium 10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
o Low 9 percent 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 are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard
event:
o High 25 percent or more of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
o Medium 10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
o Low 9 percent or less of the total replacement value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
o No impact None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
2023
18
• 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
replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildland fire and landslide,
vulnerability may be considered to be the same or a portion of exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools
specific to those hazards.
➢ High Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total replacement value (Impact Factor =
3)
➢ Medium Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 9 percent of the total replacement value (Impact
Factor = 2)
➢ Low Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 1)
➢ No impact No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).
Impacts on People
The percent of the total population exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain)
can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the green highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined
extent and location the entire population or a portion of the population is considered to be exposed, depending on the
area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to the health and safety of individuals are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on Property
The percent of the total value exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can
be found in the loss estimate matrix in the blue highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent
and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to be exposed. For the drought hazard,
it is common for jurisdictions to list
drought, but impacts to structures are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on the Economy
The loss estimates for each hazard of concern that was modeled (i.e. dam failure, flood, earthquake) can be found in the
loss estimate matrix in the purple highlighted column. For those hazards that have a defined extent and location, but do
not have modelled loss results, loss estimates can be the same as exposure or a portion thereof. For example, a large
percentage of the building stock may be exposed to landslide or wildland fire risk, but it would not be expected that one
event that resulted in loss to all exposed structures would occur. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and
location, exposure is based on the hazard type.
Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted
impact factors for people, property and the economy:
Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy}