Public Safety Committee City of Council Committees are primarily concerned with legislative/policy January 12 2021 matters. They formulate and convey 3:30 P.M. recommendations to the full council for action (BLMC 2.04.090). Agenda .
Location: Due to the COVID-19 State of Emergency proclamation, the Public Safety Committee meeting will be virtual. Members of the public wanting to listen to the meeting may call in at (408) 419- 1715. The meeting ID is 368 333 599. This is not a toll-free number.
Department Head Contact: Bryan Jeter, Police Chief Committee Liaison: Leslie Harris, Management Analyst / Executive Assistant Committee Clerk: Debbie McDonald, Administrative Specialist III
Call to Order: Councilmember Terry Carter, Chair
Roll Call: Councilmember Terry Carter, Councilmember Todd Dole, and Councilmember J. Kelly McClimans
Reports/Presentations: p.3 1. East Pierce Fire & Rescue Monthly Report – Bud Backer, Fire Chief 2. Public Safety Monthly Report – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief
Business/Action Items: p.11 1. AB21-16 Ordinance D21-16: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, amending section 2.32.010 and chapter 2.34 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code related to benefits for the assistant police chief position – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief p.17 2. AB21-10 Resolution 2897: Amendment to Agreement with the Criminal Justice Training Commission – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief p.21 3. AB21-06 Resolution 2894: Adopting the Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan – 2020-2025 Edition and the City of Bonney Lake Addendum to the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan – Woody Edvalson, Administrative Services Director p.227 4. Approval of Meeting Notes: December 8, 2020 – Debbie McDonald, Administrative Specialist III
Open Committee Discussion:
Adjourn:
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 East Pierce Fire & Rescue Monthly Chief’s Report
November 2020
3 Incidents by response area - YTD Total = 10256 incidents 3000 2420 2500 2374
2000 1810 1475 1500 942 968 1000
500 267
0
4 Total Incidents - 5 Year Trend
12000 5.69%
11500 11784 7.60% 1.01%
11000 11150 11039 4.31% 10500
10000 10259
9835 9500
9000
8500 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
INCIDENT INCREASE/DECREASE FROM 2019 - YTD AVERAGE = -4.6%
-1.6% -1.9% -6.7%
-4.8%
-2.4% -11.7%
-16.6%
Bonney Lake Prairie Ridge Lake Tapps Foothills/ Edgewood/ Sumner (113) Mutual Aid (111) (112) (114) S Prairie (116) Milton (118) 2019 1940 1550 2413 965 1096 2468 320 2020 1810 1475 2374 942 968 2420 267
5 INCIDENTS BY UNIT - YTD *NOTES CROSS-STAFFED UNITS
2744 2466 2348 2043 2014 2072 1810 1789 1463 1440
Incidents by Type - YTD 3%
33%
52%
12%
Fire Alarms EMS Incidents Other Non-Priority
6 2019 East Pierce Fire & Rescue First Due Area
STN124
STN115 L
STN118 a k
Edgewood e
T a STN114 p p Lake Tapps s
STN113 Sumner
STN111 Bonney Lake
STN116 Foothills
STN112 Prairie Ridge STN119
Legend Stations
Full Time
Volunteer
First Due 111
112
113
114 / 115
116 / 119
118 / 124 7 Mutual Aid Given (Units arrived to scene) 11/1/2020 to 11/30/2020 AGENCY CASE NO CALL TYPE TRANSPORTS Buckley Fire Dept. 9866 MVA No 10058 HEADACHE Yes Central Pierce Fire & Rescue 9485 CHEST Yes 9573 MVA No 9840 UNCONSCIOUS Yes 9857 FALL Yes 9993 MVA No 10302 MVA No Enumclaw Fire Dept. 9785 RESIDENTIAL FIRE No Orting Fire Dept. 9745 VEHICLE FIRE No 9790 RESIDENTIAL FIRE No 9851 SOB No 9955 SOB Yes 10003 SICK No 10014 SOB Yes 10075 FALL Yes Total Calls 16 Total Transports by East Pierce 7
8 Mutual Aid Received (Units arrived to scene) 11/1/2020 to 11/30/2020 AGENCY CASE NO CALL TYPE TRANSPORTS Orting Fire Dept. 9670 RESIDENTIAL FIRE No 10261 VEHICLE FIRE No Central Pierce Fire & Rescue 9705 UNCONSCIOUS No 9766 FALL No Buckley Fire Dept. Buckley Fire Dept. 9496 CPR Yes i 9674 SICK No 9768 ALLERGIC No 9903 MVA No 10027 FALL Yes 10147 SOB Yes VRFA 9619 SICK No 9861 MVA No South King Fire & Rescue 9670 RESIDENTIAL FIRE No 10143 RESIDENTIAL FIRE No 10261 VEHICLE FIRE No Carbonado Fire Dept. 9496 CPR No Total Calls 16 Total Transports by other agencies 3
9 Tehaleh Incidents for NOVEMBER 2020
1st arriving Number of Date Incident Number Type of Call Response time unit Incidents 11/01/20 0009482 EMS E112 1 0:10:21 11/03/20 0009539 EMS M116 1 0:13:32 11/05/20 0009625 EMS E116 1 0:24:42 11/12/20 0009833 EMS E112 1 0:11:07 11/15/20 0009919 EMS M112 1 0:08:57 11/24/20 0010201 EMS E112 1 0:09:52 11/26/20 0010243 False E112 1 0:12:13 11/28/20 0010283 EMS M112 1 0:05:54 11/29/20 0010305 EMS M112 1 0:09:08 Total number of incidents and avg. response time 9 0:11:45
*runcard 122
10 City of Bonney Lake City Council Agenda Bill (AB)
Department / Staff Member: Meeting/Workshop Date: Agenda Bill Number: Bryan Jeter, Chief of Police 21-16 Agenda Item Type: Ordinance/Resolution Number: Councilmember Sponsor: Ordinance D21-16
Agenda Subject: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, amending section 2.32.010 and chapter 2.34 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code related to benefits for the assistant police chief position
Full Title/Motion: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, amending section 2.32.010 and chapter 2.34 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code related to benefits for the assistant police chief position
Administrative Recommendation: Approve
Background Summary: The position of Assistant Police Chief requires significant after-hours work at unpredictable times, including recognized holidays. The City desires to compete for, and retain, the best candidates for this position. In recognition of the extraordinary after-hours efforts this position requires, the City intends to grant the Assistant Police Chief position additional paid time off as well as allowing for a more flexible use of holiday time. This will be accomplished by granting two additional floating holidays for a total of twenty additional hours, plus the existing benefit of time off in lieu of holidays up to a maximum of 120 hours per year, to be used each calendar year in lieu of receiving specific holidays off. This ordinance makes clarifying changes to existing municipal code provisions concerning time off in lieu of holidays and other benefits for exempt employees, including the assistant police chief position. The Ordinance directs the Mayor or designee to develop an administrative policy to implement the ordinance.
Attachments: Updated Ordinance
BUDGET INFORMATION Budget Amount Current Balance Required Expenditure Budget Balance Fund Source General
Utilities
Other Budget Explanation:
COMMITTEE, BOARD & COMMISSION REVIEW
Council Committee: Public Safety Approvals: Yes No Chair/Councilmember
Committee Date: Councilmember January 12, 2021 Councilmember Forwarded to: Consent Agenda: Yes No Commission/Board Review: Hearing Examiner Review:
COUNCIL ACTION Workshop Date(s): Public Hearing Date(s): Meeting Date(s): January 12, 2021 Tabled to:
11 APPROVALS Director: Mayor: Date Reviewed by City Attorney: Bryan Jeter (if applicable)
12 ORDINANCE NO. DC21-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE, PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 2.32.010 AND CHAPTER 2.34 OF THE BONNEY LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO BENEFITS FOR THE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF POSITION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.33.105 provides that the City Council may by ordinance alter the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of appointed city employees; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the position of Assistant Police Chief requires significant after-hours work at unpredictable times, including holidays; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to compete for the best candidates for important exempt positions like the Assistant Police Chief; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the extraordinary after-hours efforts the job requires, the Assistant Police Chiefs have requested to receive additional paid time off; and
WHEREAS, the Bonney Lake Municipal Code is in need of updates to remove outdated language concerning the police lieutenant position, clarify time off in lieu of holidays, and extend certain benefits to the Assistant Police Chief position.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 2.32.010 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code and the corresponding portions of Ordinance No. 1482 are amended to read as follows:
2.32.010 Holidays. A. Each regular full-time employee shall be entitled to eight hours’ salary on each of the following days which are declared to be official holidays. Full-time employees working approved alternate shifts shall receive the equivalent salary based on the average hours they work. Regular part-time employees shall be entitled to a pro-rata share of holiday pay when the employee’s regular schedule falls on an official holiday:
1. New Year’s Day;
2. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday;
3. Presidents’ Day (third Monday in February);
4. Memorial Day;
13 5. Independence Day;
6. Labor Day;
7. Veterans’ Day;
8. Thanksgiving Day;
9. Friday following Thanksgiving Day;
10. Christmas Eve Day;
11. Christmas Day; and
12. One floating holiday.
B. The Assistant Police Chief position shall have an additional twenty hours (two shifts) of floating holidays annually.
B.C. Any holiday falling on Sunday shall be observed the following Monday. Any holiday falling on Saturday shall be observed on the preceding Friday.
CD. Any day in addition to the days listed in subsection A of this section may be designated as a holiday by the city council.
DE. Each non-represented employee who, because of the nature of duty, works on any holiday shall be given vacation time off with full pay on one other day for each holiday worked. Such time off vacation days shall be taken in a manner that does not disrupt the efficient and orderly operations of the City, in the sole discretion of the employee’s supervisor. given at the convenience of the city, but within 60 days of the holiday worked. Time off in lieu of holidays shall be used in the same calendar year as the holidays worked, and shall not roll over from year to year.
EF. Employees shall receive the holiday with pay only if the employee is in a paid status the day before and the full work day after the holiday; provided, however, that if the employee is not in a paid status before or after the holiday due to a furlough or because of a previously approved leave of absence without pay where holiday pay was authorized as part of the leave approval, then the holiday shall be with pay.
FG. New employees hired after July 1st of the year shall not be eligible for the floating holidays in the year they are hired. The employee shall request use of the floating holidays at least 10 days
14 in advance. All requests shall be made prior to December 1st of each year. Permission to use the floating holidays shall not be unreasonably withheld. No unused floating holiday may be carried forward to the next year.
GH. Unpaid Holidays. Regular full-time and part-time employees are entitled up to two unpaid holidays per calendar year for a reason of faith or conscience or an organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization. The employee may select the days on which the employee desires to take the two unpaid holidays after consultation with the supervisor and submission of the city’s regular time-off request form. A minimum of 14 calendar days’ advance notice is required and the city may deny the request if it imposes an undue hardship on the city or is necessary to maintain public safety.
Section 2. Chapter 2.34 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code and the corresponding portions of Ordinance No. 926 are amended as follows:
2.34.010 Employee life insurance. Department heads and regular full-time nonunion employees shall receive a $50,000 $20,000 life insurance coverage.
2.34.020 Educational premiums – Police chief and assistant police chief lieutenant. The current police chief and current assistant police chief lieutenant shall receive an educational premium of $250.00 annually for holding BA Degrees.
2.34.030 Police department – Uniform allowance. The police chief and assistant police chief lieutenant shall receive a uniform allowance comparable to the union contract for the police department.
Section 3. Administrative Policy. The Mayor or designee shall develop an administrative policy to implement this Ordinance, which shall address the circumstances under which non-represented employees may use time off in lieu of holidays and the tracking of such time.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance, concerning the compensation or working conditions of city employees, shall take effect five days after passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor this 12thth day of January, 2021.
15 ______Neil Johnson, Jr. Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
______Harwood T. Edvalson City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Kathleen Haggard City Attorney
Passed: Valid: Published: Effective Date:
16 City of Bonney Lake City Council Agenda Bill (AB)
Department / Staff Member: Meeting/Workshop Date: Agenda Bill Number: Bryan Jeter, Chief of Police 21-10 Agenda Item Type: Ordinance/Resolution Number: Councilmember Sponsor: Resolution 2897
Agenda Subject: Amendment to the Agreement with the Criminal Justice Training Commission
Full Title/Motion: A Resolution of The City Council of The City of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, authorizing the chief of police to sign an addendum to the agreement to allow Officer Todd Green to instruct at the Basic Law Enforcement Academy.
Administrative Recommendation: Approve
Background Summary: Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission has amended the original MOU in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Instructors must undergo mandatory testing to increase the safety of the recruits and staff. Failure to comply with the mandatory testing will result in Ofc. Green’s contract being terminated.
Attachments: Amendment to the agreement with the CJTC
BUDGET INFORMATION Budget Amount Current Balance Required Expenditure Budget Balance Fund Source X General
Utilities
Other Budget Explanation:
COMMITTEE, BOARD & COMMISSION REVIEW
Council Committee: Public Safety Approvals: Yes No Chair/Councilmember
Committee Date: Councilmember January 12, 2021 Councilmember Forwarded to: Consent Agenda: Yes No Commission/Board Review: Hearing Examiner Review:
COUNCIL ACTION Workshop Date(s): Public Hearing Date(s): Meeting Date(s): January 12, 2021 Tabled to:
APPROVALS Director: Mayor: Date Reviewed by City Attorney: Bryan Jeter (if applicable)
17 Rev. January 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 2897
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE, PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING COMMISSION TO ALLOW BONNEY LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER TODD GREEN TO BE A TAC OFFICER AT THE BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY.
The City Council of the City of Bonney Lake, Washington, does hereby resolve that the Chief is authorized to sign the amendment to the agreement between the City of Bonney Lake and Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED by the City Council this 12th day of January, 2021.
______Neil Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
______Harwood T. Edvalson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Kathleen Haggard, City Attorney
18 19 20 City of Bonney Lake, Washington City Council Agenda Bill (AB) Department/Staff Contact: Meeting/Workshop Date: Agenda Bill Number: Admin Srvcs / Edvalson 12 January 2021 AB21-06 Agenda Item Type: Ordinance/Resolution Number: Sponsor: Resolution Resolution 2894
Agenda Subject:
Full Title/Motion: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, Adopting The Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2020-2025 Edition And The City Of Bonney Lake Addendum To The Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Administrative Recommendation: Adopt.
Background Summary: Back in January 2019, the City Council approved of the City’s collaboration with Pierce County Emergency Management and other entities on the preparation of the Region and City’s five-year update of the Homeland Security Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The prepared plan includes an Addendum applicable specifically to the City of Bonney Lake. Having an adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan is an essential element of various Federal grant applications. After a two-year development process involving Bonney Lake staff, the full plan has been completed and is now presented to the Council for formal adoption. Adoption will allow WA State Emergency Management Division to certify to the Federal Emergency Management Agency that the City has an adopted and approved plan. Because the full Regional plan is approximately 550 pages, the Executive Summary of the Regional Plan is attached for your review. We are happy to make the full plan available to you upon request. Also attached is the full Bonney Lake Addendum to the Regional plan. Attachments: Resolution 2894 and the Executive Summary of the 2020-2025 Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Bonney Lake Addendum A-1.
BUDGET INFORMATION Budget Amount Current Balance Required Expenditure Budget Balance Fund Source General Utilities Other Budget Explanation: The City's contribution to the process was the use of staff time.
COMMITTEE, BOARD & COMMISSION REVIEW Council Committee Review: Public Safety Approvals: Yes No Date: 12 January 2021 Chair/Councilmember Terry Carter Councilmember Todd Dole Councilmember J. Kelly McClimans Forward to: Council Consent Agenda: Yes No Commission/Board Review: Hearing Examiner Review:
COUNCIL ACTION Workshop Date(s): Public Hearing Date(s): Meeting Date(s): 01/12/2021 Tabled to Date:
APPROVALS Director: Mayor: Date Reviewed HTE NJ by City Attorney: N/A (if applicable)
21 RESOLUTION NO. 2894
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE, PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION AND THE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM TO THE REGION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that for all disasters declared on or after November 1, 2004, applicants for sub-grants following any disaster must have an approved Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44CFR 201.6 prior to receipt of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program project funding; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that for Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program project funding on or after November 1, 2003, applicants must have an approved Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44CFR 201.6 prior to receipt of project funding; and
WHEREAS, the All Hazard Mitigation Plan Update represents the commitment of the City of Bonney Lake along with other surrounding government entities to reduce the risks from natural, man-made and technological hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the affects of hazards, and it is in the public interest to proceed with the planning process in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bonney Lake has participated with the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management in the development of Bonney Lake’s All Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, and recognizes the economic loss, personal injury, and damage that can arise from these hazards; and
WHEREAS, reduction of these impacts can be achieved through a comprehensive coordinated planning process which includes an updated risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the mitigation strategies to reduce losses and vulnerabilities, a five-year cycle for plan maintenance, and documentation of formal adoption by the City of Bonney Lake; and
WHEREAS, the 2020-2025 Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan Edition has been completed and approved by the State and the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bonney Lake could risk not receiving future disaster funding if the All Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is not adopted;
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the All Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake hereby resolves as follows:
22 Section 1. The Region 5 (Pierce County) Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2020-2025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference (Executive Summary attached as Exhibit A); and
Section 2. The Bonney Lake Addendum to the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan as set forth in the attached Addendum A-1, which is an update to the Bonney Lake Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is, also, hereby adopted and shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake this 12th day of, January, 2021.
______Neil Johnson, Jr., Mayor ATTEST:
______Harwood T. Edvalson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______Kathleen Haggard, City Attorney
23 24 SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Jurisdiction Participants Cities and Towns Group (19) School Group (15) 1. City of Bonney Lake 1. Carbonado School District 2. City of Buckley 2. Clover Park School District 3. City DuPont 3. Dieringer School District 4. City of Edgewood 4. Eatonville School District 5. City of Fife 5. Fife School District 6. City of Fircrest 6. Franklin Pierce School District 7. City of Gig Harbor 7. Orting School District 8. City of Lakewood 8. Pacific Lutheran University 9. City of Milton 9. Peninsula School District 10. City of Orting 10. Puyallup School District 11. City of Puyallup 11. Steilacoom School District No. 1 12. City of Roy 12. Sumner-Bonney Lake School District 13. City of Sumner 13. Tacoma School District 14. City of Tacoma 14. University Place School District 15. City of University Place 15. White River School District 16. Town of Carbonado 17. Town of Eatonville 18. Town of South Prairie 19. Town of Steilacoom 20. Town of Wilkeson 21. Unincorporated Pierce County Fire Group (12) Utility Group (12) 1. FD #3 (West Pierce Fire & Rescue) 1. Clear Lake Water District 2. FD #5 (Gig Harbor Fire & Medic One) 2. Firgrove Mutual Water Company 3. FD #6 (Central Pierce Fire & Rescue) 3. Fruitland Mutual Water Company 4. FD #13 (Browns Point – Dash Point) 4. Graham Hill Mutual Water Company 5. FD #14 (Riverside Fire & Rescue) 5. Lakeview Light and Power 6. FD #16 (Key Peninsula Fire Department) 6. Lakewood Water District 7. FD #17 (South Pierce Fire & Rescue) 7. Mt. View-Edgewood Water Company 8. FD #18 (Orting Valley Fire & Rescue) 8. Ohop Mutual Light Company 9. FD #21 (Graham Fire and Rescue) 9. Parkland Light & Water Company 10. FD #22 (East Pierce Fire and Rescue) 10. Peninsula Light Company 11. FD #23 (Ashford – Elbe) 11. Spanaway Water Company 12. FD #27 (Anderson Island Fire & Rescue) 12. Summit Water and Supply Company 13. Tanner Electric 14. Valley Water District
Special Purpose District (10) Health and Medical Group (8) 1. Crystal River Ranch Association 1. Cascade Regional Blood Services 2. Crystal Village Homeowners Association 2. Community Health Care 3. Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma 3. Franciscan Health System 4. Pierce Transit 4. Group Health Cooperative 5. Port of Tacoma 5. MultiCare Health System 6. Riviera Community Club 6. Western State Hospital 7. Taylor Bay Beach Club Inc.
DIRECTOR OF PIERCE COUNTY DEPARMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Jody Ferguson
FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This plan was financed by grant funding from the Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program.
25 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) MAPS: Pierce County Department of Emergency Management developed all of the maps included in this plan. The information on the maps in this plan was derived from Pierce County GIS and other sources. Care was taken in the creation of these maps but is provided “as is.” Pierce County cannot accept any responsibility for any errors, omissions or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany these products (the maps). Users are cautioned to field verify information on this product before making any decisions.
PREPARED BY: Pierce County Department of Emergency Management 2501 South 35th Street, Suite D Tacoma, WA 98409-7405 (253) 798-7470 http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/PC/
Debbie Bailey-Project Lead Wyatt Godfrey-Project Team Chelsey Bell-Project Team Todd Kilpatrick-Project Team
26 (This page left blank intentionally)
27 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
REGION 5 PLAN PROCESS…………………………………………………………………... SECTION 1 REGION 5 PLAN PROFILE...... SECTION 2 REGION 5 CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION …………………………………………….. SECTION 3 REGION 5 RISK ASSESSMENT (INTRODUCTION) ………………………………….. SECTION 4 REGION 5 RISK ASSESSMENT – GEOLOGICAL ……………………………………. SECTION 4.G
AVALANCHE HAZARD …………………………………………………………………………… SUB-SECTION 4.G1 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ………………………………………………………………………… SUB-SECTION 4.G2 LANDSLIDE HAZARD ……………………………………………………………………………. SUB-SECTION 4.G3 TSUNAMI HAZARD ………………………………………………………………………………. SUB-SECTION 4.G4 VOLCANO HAZARD ……………………………………………………………………………… SUB-SECTION 4.G5
REGION 5 RISK ASSESSMENT – METEOROLOGICAL …………………………… SECTION 4.M
CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARD ………………………………………………………….…….. SUB-SECTION 4.M1 DROUGHT HAZARD ………………………………………………………………………….… SUB-SECTION 4.M2 FLOOD HAZARD …………………………………………………………………………….….. SUB-SECTION 4.M3 SEVERE WEATHER HAZARD ……………………………………………….………………. SUB-SECTION 4.M4 WUI FIRE HAZARD …………………………………………………………….……………… SUB-SECTION 4.M5
REGION 5 RISK ASSESSMENT – TECHNOLOGICAL ………………..…………… SECTION 4.T
ABANDONED MINES……………………………………………………..…………………… .SUB-SECTION 4.T1 ACTIVE THREAT / ATTACK TACTICS……………………………………..……….……… SUB-SECTION 4.T2 CIVIL DISTURBANCE ………………………………………………………..……….……… SUB-SECTION 4.T3 CYBER-ATTACK ………………………………………………………..……….……… SUB-SECTION 4.T4 DAM FAILURE……………………………………………………………………..……………. SUB-SECTION 4.T5 ENERGY EMERGENCY.………………………………………………………………………. SUB-SECTION 4.T6 EPIDEMIC/PANDEMIC……………………………………………………………………….. SUB-SECTION 4.T7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ………………………………………………………..………… SUB-SECTION 4.T8 PIPELINES………………………………………………………………………………..……… SUB-SECTION 4.T9 TERRORISM ………………………………………………………………………………….…. SUB-SECTION 4.T10 TRANSPORTATION……………………………………………………………………….…… SUB-SECTION 4.T11
REGION 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY………………………………………………………. SECTION 5 REGION 5 INFRASTRUCTURE ……………………………………………………………… SECTION 6 REGION 5 PLAN MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………….. SECTION 7
ADDENDA
City and Town Group ………………………………………………………………….. Addendum A CITY OF BONNEY LAKE……………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM A-1 CITY OF BUCKLEY ……………………………………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM A-2 28 CITY OF DUPONT ……..……………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM A-3 CITY OF EDGEWOOD ………………………………………………………………….……………. ADDENDUM A-4 CITY OF FIFE ………………………………………………………………………………….………. ADDENDUM A-5 CITY OF FIRCREST………………………………………………………………………..….…….. ADDENDUM A-6 CITY OF GIG HARBOR ………………………………………………………………………….…… ADDENDUM A-7 CITY OF LAKEWOOD ………………………………………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM A-8 CITY OF MILTON………………………………………………………………….…………….……. ADDENDUM A-9 CITY OF ORTING……………………………………………………………………….…………… ADDENDUM A-10 CITY OF PUYALLUP…………………………………………………………………….…………… ADDENDUM A-11 CITY OF ROY………………………………………………………………………….……………… ADDENDUM A-12 CITY OF SUMNER……………………………………………………………………………….…… ADDENDUM A-13 CITY OF TACOMA……………………………………………………………………..…………….. ADDENDUM A-14 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PLACE……………………………………………………..…………….. ADDENDUM A-15 TOWN OF CARBONADO…………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM A-16 TOWN OF EATONVILLE …………………………………………………………………..……. ADDENDUM A-17 TOWN OF SOUTH PRAIRIE ………………………………………………………...………… ADDENDUM A-18 TOWN OF STEILACOOM ………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM A-19 TOWN OF WILKESON……………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM A-20 UNINCORPORATED PIERCE COUNTY…………………………………………………….… ADDENDUM A-21
School Group ……………………………………………………………………………… Addendum B CARBONADO SCHOOL DISTRICT……………………………………………………………….. ADDENDUM B-1 CLOVER PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT……………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-2 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT ………………………………..………………………………. ADDENDUM B-3 EATONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT …………………………….………………………………… ADDENDUM B-4 FIFE SCHOOL DISTRICT ……………………………………………..…………………………… ADDENDUM B-5 FRANKLIN PIERCE SCHOOL DISTRICT ………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM B-6 ORTING SCHOOL DISTRICT …………………………………………………………………….. ADDENDUM B-7 PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY ……………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-8 PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT ………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-9 PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT …………………………………………………………………..ADDENDUM B-10 THE RAINIER SCHOOL …………………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-11 STEILACOOM HISTORIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ……………………………………………. ADDENDUM B-12 SUMNER SCHOOL DISTRICT …………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-13 TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS …………………………………………………………….………. ADDENDUM B-14 UNIVERSITY PLACE SCHOOL DISTRICT …………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-15 UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM B-16 WHITE RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT ……………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM B-17
Fire Group ………………………………………………………………………………………. Addendum C WEST PIERCE FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #3) …………………………………………..……….ADDENDUM C-1 GIG HARBOR FIRE & MEDIC ONE (PCFD #5) …………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-2 CENTRAL PIERCE FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #6) ……………………………….…………… ADDENDUM C-3 BROWNS POINT – DASH POINT (PCFD #13) …………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-4 RIVERSIDE FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #14)…………………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-5 KEY PENINSULA FIRE DEPARTMENT (PCFD #16) ……………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-6 SOUTH PIERCE FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #17)……………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-7 ORTING VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #18)…………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-8 GRAHAM FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #21) ……………………………………………………… ADDENDUM C-9 EAST PIERCE FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #22) ……………………………………………….. ADDENDUM C-10 ASFORD – ELBE (PCFD #23) …………………………………………………….……..……… ADDENDUM C-11 ANDERSON ISLAND FIRE & RESCUE (PCFD #27)……………………………………… ADDENDUM C-12
Utility Group …………………………………………………………………………………… Addendum D CLEAR LAKE WATER DISTRICT ………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM D-1 FIRGROVE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM D-2 29 FRUITLAND MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ……………………………………………………. ADDENDUM D-3 GRAHAM HILL MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM D-4 LAKEVIEW LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY ……………………………….………………… ADDENDUM D-5 LAKEWOOD WATER DISTRICT ………………………………………………………….……… ADDENDUM D-6 MT. VIEW-EDGEWOOD WATER COMPANY …………………………………………..……. ADDENDUM D-7 OHOP MUTUAL LIGHT COMPANY ……………………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM D-8 PARKLAND LIGHT AND WATER COMPANY ………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM D-9 PENINSULA LIGHT COMPANY ………………………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM D-10 SPANAWAY WATER COMPANY…………………………………………………………..……… ADDENDUM D-11 SUMMIT WATER AND SUPPLY COMPANY ……………………………………….………… ADDENDUM D-12 VALLEY WATER DISTRICT……………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM D-13 TANNER ELECTRIC ………………………………………………………….…………………….. ADDENDUM D-14
Special Purpose Districts…………………………………………………………………… Addendum E CRYSTAL RIVER RANCH ASSOCIATION …………………………………………………….. ADDENDUM E-1 CRYSTAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION……………………………………….. ADDENDUM E-2 METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT OF TACOMA …………………………………………… ADDENDUM E-3 PIERCE TRANSIT ……………………………………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM E-4 PORT OF TACOMA ………………………………………………………………………………….. ADDENDUM E-5 RIVIERA COMMUNITY CLUB……………………………………………………………………… ADDENDUM E-6 TAYLOR BAY BEACH CLUB………………………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM E-7
Health and Medical Group……………………………………………………..…….…… Addendum F CASCADE REGIONAL BLOOD SERVICS ………………………………………………….…… ADDENDUM F-1 COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM …………………………………………………………. ADDENDUM F-2 FRANCISCAN HEALTH SYSTEM……………………………………………………………….…. ADDENDUM F-3 KAISER PERMANENTE ………………………………………………………………………..….… ADDENDUM F-4 MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE ………………….……… ADDENDUM F-5 TACOMA-PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ……………………………………… ADDENDUM F-6 WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL …………………………………………………………….…….. ADDENDUM F-7
APPENDICES
Acronyms …………………………………………………………………………………….. Appendix A Maps, Figures and Tables …………………………………………………………..…. Appendix B Glossary ………………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix C
30 MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 REGION 5 PLANNING GROUP………………………………………………………………………… ES-7 MAP ES-1 CITY AND TOWN PLANNING GROUP ……………………………………………..…………………. ES-8 MAP ES-2 FIRE PLANNING GROUP ………………………………………………………………………………….. ES-9 MAP ES-3 SCHOOL PLANNING GROUP ……………………………………………………..……………………… ES-10 MAP ES-4 SPECIAL PURPOSE PLANNING GROUP ……………………………………………………..……… ES-11 MAP ES-5 UTILITY PLANNING GROUP …………………………………………………….……………………… ES-12 MAP ES-6 HOSPITAL PLANNING GROUP …………………………………………………….…………………… ES-13 MAP ES-7 UNINCORPORATED PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING GROUP …………………………………… ES-14
Process Section TABLE 1-1 CHANGE MATRIX ……………………………………….……………………………………………………. 1-4 TABLE 1-2 PLANNING TEAM-CITY GROUP ……………………………..…………………………………….…. 1-10 TABLE 1-3 PLANNING TEAM-FIRE GROUP ……………………………………………………….……………….. 1-11 TABLE 1-4 PLANNING TEAM-SCHOOL GROUP …………………………………………..………………………. 1-12 TABLE 1-5 PLANNING TEAM-SPECIAL PURPOSE GROUP …………………………………………...………. 1-13 TABLE 1-6 PLANNING TEAM-UTILITY GROUP ………………………………………….………………………… 1-14 TABLE 1-7PLANNING TEAM-HEALTH AND MEDICAL GROUP ……………………………………….…… 1-14 TABLE 1-8 PLANNING TEAM-PIERCE COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROUP …………………………………. 1-15 TABLE 1-9 PLANNING TEAM-NORTH GROUP ……………………………..…..…………………………….…. 1-16 TABLE 1-10 PLANNING TEAM-NE GROUP ………………………………………………………...……………….. 1-17 TABLE 1-11 PLANNING TEAM-WEST GROUP …………………………………………..………..………………. 1-19 TABLE 1-12 PLANNING TEAM-SW GROUP ………………………………………………………….…….………. 1-19 TABLE 1-13 PLANNING TEAM-CENTRAL GROUP …………………………………….…………….…………… 1-20 TABLE 1-14 PLANNING TEAM MEETINGS-CITY AND TOWN GROUP……………………………………. 1-22 TABLE 1-15 PLANNING TEAM MEETINGS-FIRE GROUP ……………………………………………………… 1-22 TABLE 1-16 PLANNING TEAM MEETING-SCHOOL GROUP …………………………………………………. 1-22 TABLE 1-17 PLANNING TEAM MEETING-SPECIAL PURPOSE GROUP ………………………………….. 1-22 TABLE 1-18 PLANNING TEAM MEETING-UTILITY GROUP ………………………………………………….. 1-22 TABLE 1-19 PLANNING TEAM MEETING-HEALTH AND MEDICAL GROUP ……………………………. 1-23 TABLE 1-20 PLANNING TEAM MEETING-UNINCORPORATED PIERCE COUNTY GROUP ……….. 1-23 TABLE 1-21 REGIONAL PLANNING TEAM NORTH GROUP MEETINGS ………………………..……… 1-25 TABLE 1-22 REGIONAL PLANNING TEAM NE GROUP MEETINGS ………….………..…………………… 1-27 TABLE 1-23 REGIONAL PLANNING TEAM WEST GROUP MEETINGS ………………………………….… 1-27 TABLE 1-24 REGIONAL PLANNING TEAM CENTRAL GROUP MEETINGS ……………………………..… 1-30 TABLE 1-25 REGIONAL PLANNING TEAM SW GROUP MEETINGS ………………………………………… 1-32 TABLE 1-26 DROP-IN MEETINGS ………………………………………………………………………………..…… 1-34 TABLE 1-27 THREAT AND HAZARD WORKSHOP AGENDA-NATURAL HAZARDS …………………… 1-35 TABLE 1-28 THREAT AND HAZARD WORKSHOP AGENDA-TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS ……….. 1-35 TABLE 1-29 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS-CITYS AND TOWNS GROUP …………………. 1-41 TABLE 1-30 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS-FIRE GROUP ………………………………………. 1-43 TABLE 1-31 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS-SCHOOL GROUP …………………………………. 1-45 TABLE 1-32 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS-SPECIAL PURPOSE GROUP …………………. 1-46 TABLE 1-33 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS-UTILITY GROUP …………………………………. 1-47 TABLE 1-28 FIRST ELECTED OFFICIAL’S MEETINGS MEDICAL GROUP ……………………….…..….. 1-48
Profile Section TABLE 2-1 2010 PIERCE COUNTY CENSUS DATA ………………..………………………………………………. 2-4 TABLE 2-2 PIERCE COUNTY POPULATION……………………….. ……………………………………………….. 2-4 MAP 2-1 PIERCE COUNTY POPULATION CONCENTRATION ……………..…………………………………. 2-6 MAP 2-2 PIERCE COUNTY PERCENT SPEAKING LESS ENGLISH ……………..…………………………….. 2-7 MAP 2-3 PIERCE COUNTY PERCENT WITH A DISABILITY ………………………………………………….. 2-10 MAP 2-4 ELECTRICAL DEPENDENCIES ………………………………………………………………………………..2-11 TABLE 2-3 FEDERAL & STATE LARGE LAND PARCELS IN PIERCE COUNTY……………………………. 2-13
31 TABLE 2-4 PIERCE COUNTY TOP EMPLOYERS…….……………………………………………………………… 2-15
Risk Assessment Section TABLE 4-1a REGION 5 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY-GEOLOGICAL ………..………………….4-12 TABLE 4-1b REGION 5 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY-METEOROLOGICAL ………..…………4-13 TABLE 4-1c REGION 5 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY-TECHNOLOGICAL ………..………… 4-15 MAP 4-1 SHAKE MAP M7.1 TACOMA FAULT ZONE ……………………..……………………………………… 4-18 MAP 4-2 SHAKE MAP M7.2 SEATAC FAULT ZONE ……………………….………………………..…………… 4-19 MAP 4-2 SHAKE MAP M7.2 NISQUALLY FAULT ZONE ……………………….…………………..…………… 4-20
Geological Hazards
Avalanche FIGURE 4.1-1 SLAB AVALANCHE ……………………..…………………………..……………….………………… 4-22 MAP 4.1-1 AREA VULNERABLE TO AVALANCHE ……………………………………..…………..….…………. 4-24 TABLE 4.1-1 PIERCE COUNTY AVALANCHES OF RECORD ………………..…….………………..………… 4-25
Earthquake FIGURE 4.2-1 WHAT IS AN EARTHQUAKE? ……………………………………….……………….………..…… 4-29 FIGURE 4.2-1 TYPES OF EARTHQUAKES ……………………………………….………………….……………… 4-30 MAP 4.2-1 PIERCE COUNTY EARTHQUAKES SOURCES ……………………….……………….……….…… 4-31 MAP 4.2-2 SEATTLE AND TACOMA FAULT SEGMENTS ……………….……………………………………… 4-34 MAP 4.2-3 MAGNITUDE 6.9 SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE – TACOMA FAULT ZONE ……………..…… 4-36 MAP 4.2-4 MAGNITUDE 7.2 SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE – SEATTLE FAULT ZONE ……….……….… 4-37 MAP 4.2-5 MAGNITUDE 9.3 SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE – CASCADIA MEGATHRUST ……….…..… 4-38 MAP 4.2-6 PIERCE COUNTY LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY ……….……………………………….… 4-40 MAP 4.2-7 MAJOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST EARTHQUAKES ………………………………………..……..… 4-41 TABLE 4.2-1 NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES FELT IN PIERCE COUNTY ……………….………….……....…. 4-41 FIGURE 4.2-3 SALMON BEACH, TACOMA WA-FOLLOWING FEB 2001 EARTHQUAKE ………..…… 4-45 FIGURE 4.2-4 LIQUEFACTION, NIIGATA JAPAN 1964 …………………………………………….…….……. 4-48 FIGURE 5.2-5 LATERAL SPREADING – MARCH 2001 ……………….…………………………………………. 4-48 FIGURE .62-5 BRIDGE SEISMIC SCREENING TOOL …………………….……………………………….……. 4-52
Landslide FIGURE 4.3-1 NORTHEAST TACOMA-LANDSLIDE 01/2007 …………………………………..……..……… 4-55 TABLE 4.3-1 LANDSLIDE FACTS FOR PIERCE COUNTY – SHALLOW LANDSLIDE ………………..… 4-57 MAP 4.3-1 PIERCE COUNTY DEEP LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA ………………..……………………..…… 4-58 MAP 4.3-2 PIERCE COUNTY SHALLOW LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA ……………………………..……… 4-59 MAP 4.3-3 PIERCE COUNTY SLOPE STABILITY AREAS ……………………….………….………..………… 4-60 FIGURE 4.3-3 PIERCE COUNTY COMPARISON OF LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS ……………. 4-61 TABLE 4.3-1 NOTABLE LANDSLIDES IN PIERCE COUNTY …………….………………………………….… 4-62 FIGURE 4.3-4 SKI PARK ROAD-LANDSLIDE 01/31/03 ………………………………………………………… 4-63 FIGURE 4.3-5 SR-165 BRIDGE ALONG CARBON RIVER-LANDSLIDE 2/1996 ……………..…….…… 4-64 FIGURE 4.3-6 ALDERCREST DRIVE-LANDSLIDE ……………….………………………………………………. 4-65
32
Tsunami FIGURE 4.4-1 HAWAII 1957-RESIDENTS EXPLORE OCEAN FLOOR BEFORE TSUNAMI ……..…… 4-67 FIGURE 4.4-2 HAWAII 1949-WAVE OVERTAKES A SEAWALL ……………………………………………… 4-68 FIGURE 4.4-3 TSUNAMIS IN WASHINGTON STATE ……………………………………………………..….... 4-70 FIGURE 4.4-4 SEATTLE AND TACOMA FAULTS …………………………………………………….…………… 4-71 FIGURE 4.4-5 TSUNAMI INUNDATION AND CURRENT ….……………..…………………………..…….…. 4-73 TABLE 4.4-1 NOTABLE TSUNAMIS IN PIERCE COUNTY …………………………………………..…………. 4-75 FIGURE 4.4-8 SALMON BEACH, 1949 TSUNAMIGENIC SUBAERIAL LANDSLIDE ………..………..… 4-76 FIGURE 4.4-11 DAMAGE IN TACOMA FROM THE 1894 TSUNAMI ……………………………..…………. 4-78
Volcanic FIGURE 4.5-1 VOLCANIC HAZARDS …………………….………………………………………………………..… 4 -83 TABLE 4.5-1 TEPHRA TYPES AND SIZES …………………..………………………………………………….…. 4 -85 MAP 4.5-1 LAHARS, LAVA FLOWS, AND PYROCLASTIC HAZARDS OF MT RAINIER …….……..… 4 -87 TABLE 4.5-2 ESTIMATED LAHAR TRAVEL TIME-LAHAR 107 to 108 Cubic Meters Volume ……... 4 -89 MAP 4.5-2 ASHFALL PROBABILITY FROM MT RAINIER …………………..………………………………… 4 -90 TABLE 4.5-3 MT RAINIER IDENTIFIED TEPHRA, LAST 10,000 YEARS ………………………………… 4 -91 TABLE 4.5-4 PIERCE COUNTY RIVER VALLEY DEBRIS FLOW HISTORY ………………………….…… 4 -92
Meteorological Hazards
Climate Change FIGURE 4.6-1 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 1850 TO 2006 ……………….…………………….…. 4 -106 TABLE 4.6-1 RECENT AND PROJECTED TEMPERATURES FOR THE PACIFIC NW ……….…….…. 4 -108 FIGURE 4.6-2 PUGET SOUND PROJECTED WARMING ……………….…………………………..………... 4 -109 FIGURE 4.6-3 PUGET SOUND PROJECTED PRECIPITATION CHANGE …………………………….…. 4 -110 FIGURE 4.6-4 PUYALLUP RIVER: PROJECTED CHANGE IN MONTHLY HYDROGRAPH ……….…. 4 -111 FIGURE 4.6-5 PROJECTED DECLINE IN SNOWPACK ………………………………….……………………. 4 -112 TABLE 4.6-2 PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISK: TACOMA ………………………………………………..……. 4 -113 FIGURE 4.6-6 SEA LEVEL RISK INUNDATION AREA IN 2100 TACOMA TIDEFLATS ………….…. 4 -113 FIGURE 4.6-7 CLIMATE IMPACTS AND NATURAL HAZARDS ……………….……………………………. 4 -116 FIGURE 4.6-8 COMPARISON OF THE SOUTH CASCADE GLACIER FROM 1928 TO 2003 …….… 4 -120 FIGURE 4.6-9 LOWER NISQUALLY GLACIER RETREAT: 1912 TO 2001 ………..…………..………. 4 -121
Drought FIGURE 4.7-1 SEQUENCE OF DROUGHT IMPACTS ……………….………………………………….……… 4 -124 TABLE 4.7-1 PALMER DROUGHT SEVERITY INDEX ………………………………………………….……… 4 -125 MAP 4.7-1 PIERCE COUNTY WATERSHEDS ………………..………………………………………………..… 4 -126 TABLE 4.7-2 % AREA OF BASIN IN DROUGHT CONDITIONS SINCE 2895……………………..…… 4 -127 MAP 4.7-2 % OF TIME IN SEVERE TO EXTREME DROUGHT: 1895-1995 …………………………… 4 -128 MAP 4.7-3 % OF TIME IN SEVERE TO EXTREME DROUGHT: 1985-1995 …………………..……… 4 -128 TABLE 4.7-2 NOTABLE DROUGHTS AFFECTING PIERCE COUNTY ………………………………..…… 4 -129 FIGURE 4.7-3 NATIONAL DROUGHT MITIGATION CENTER DROUGHT IMPACT ………………… 4 -131 MAP 4.7-4 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN …………………….………………………………………………………. 4 -132 MAP 4.7-5 USDA CLIMATE ZONES-WASHINGTON STATE ………………………………………..……… 4 -136
Flood MAP 4.8-1 LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER …………………………………………………………………………..… 4 -143 TABLE 4.8-1 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ……………………….………… 4 -144 TABLE 4.8-2 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ……………………… 4 -146 TABLE 4.8-3 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER FACILITIES ……….…… 4 -147 MAP 4.8-2 MIDDLE PUYALLUP RIVER …………………..………………………………………………….…… 4 -149 TABLE 4.8-4 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN MIDDLE PUYALLUP RIVER ………………………………… 4 -150 TABLE 4.8-5 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE MIDDLE PUYALLUP RIVER ……………………… 4 -152 TABLE 4.8-6 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO MIDDLE PUYALLUP RIVER FACILITIES …….… 4 -153-156 33 MAP 4.8-3 UPPER PUYALLUP RIVER …………………..…………………………………………………..……… 4 -158 TABLE 4.8-7 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN UPPER PUYALLUP RIVER …………………………………… 4 -159 TABLE 4.8-8 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE UPPER PUYALLUP RIVER ……………………… 4 -161 TABLE 4.8-9 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO UPPER PUYALLU8P RIVER FACILITIES ……… 4 -162-170 MAP 4.8-4 LOWER WHITE RIVER …………………..………………………………………………………..…… 4 -172 TABLE 4.8-10 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN LOWER WHITE RIVER ……………………………..……… 4 -173 TABLE 4.8-11 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE LOWER WHITE RIVER ………………….… 4 -174-175 TABLE 4.8-12 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO LOWER WHITE RIVER FACILITIES ………..….…… 4 -176 MAP 4.8-5 UPPER WHITE RIVER …………………..………………………………………………………….…… 4 -178 TABLE 4.8-13 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN UPPER WHITE RIVER ………………………………….…… 4 -179 TABLE 4.8-14 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE UPPER WHITE RIVER ………………………….… 4 -180 TABLE 4.8-15 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO UPPER WHITE RIVER FACILITIES ………..……… 4 -181 MAP 4.8-6 GREENWATER RIVER …………………..………………………………………………………..…… 4 -183 TABLE 4.8-16 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN GREENWATER RIVER ………………………………..…… 4 -184 MAP 4.8-7 CARBON RIVER …………………..……………………………………………………………………… 4 -187 TABLE 4.8-17 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN CARBON RIVER ………………………………………..…… 4 -188 TABLE 4.8-18 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS IN THE CARBON RIVER …………………………….…… 4 -190 TABLE 4.8-19 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO CARBON RIVER FACILITIES ………………...… 4 -190-198 MAP 4.8-8 SOUTH PRAIRIE CREEK …………………..…………………………………………….……….….… 4 -200 TABLE 4.8-20 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN SOUTH PRAIRIE CREEK …………………………………… 4 -201 MAP 4.8-9 MIDDLE NISQUALLY RIVER …………………..………………………………….……….……….… 4 -204 TABLE 4.8-21 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN MIDDLE NISQUALLY RIVER …………………………..… 4 -205 MAP 4.8-10 UPPER NISQUALLY RIVER …………………..………………………………………….….…….… 4 -208 TABLE 4.8-22 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN UPPER NISQUALLY RIVER ………………………..…..… 4 -209 TABLE 4.8-23 SUMMARY OF DAMANGES TO UPPER NISQUALLY RIVER FACILITIES ………..… 4 -210 MAP 4.8-10 MASHEL RIVER …………………..…………………………………………….……………….…….… 4 -213 TABLE 4.8-24 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN MASHEL RIVER ………………………………………….…… 4 -214 FIGURE 4.8-1 NOV 2006 FLOODING RIVER PARK ESTATES-PUYALLUP RIVER ………….…….… 4 -216
Severe Weather TABLE 4.9-1 FUJITA TORNADO DAMAGE SCALE ……………………………………………………….……. 4 -224 FIGURE 4.9-1 WINDSTORM TRACKS ………………………………………………………………………..……. 4 -226 MAP 4.9-1 PIERCE COUNTY SEVERE WEATHER WIND HAZARD-SOUTH WIND EVENT ……..… 4 -227 MAP 4.9-2 PIERCE COUNTY SEVERE WEATHER WIND HAZARD-EAST WIND EVENT ……….…. 4. -228 TABLE 4.9-2 NOTABLE SEVERE WEATHER IN PIERCE COUNTY ………………………………..… 4 -229-230 FIGURE 4.9-2 SNOWSTORM 01/2004 DOWNTOWN TACOMA ………………………………..…….…… 4 -233 FIGURE 4.9-3 SATELLITE IMAGE-HANUKKAH EVE WINDSTORM …………………………………….… 4 -234 FIGURE 4.9-4 BEFORE/AFTER TORNADO DAMAGE GREENSBURG KS 05/04/07 …………………. 4 -236 FIGURE 4.9-5 TACOMA NARROWS BRIDGE-NOVEMBER 7, 1940 WINDSTORM ……………….…. 4 -239 FIGURE 4.9-6 COUNTY ROAD DECEMBER 2006 WINDSTORM ……………………………………….… 4 -241
Wildland Urban Interface Fire MAP 4.10-1 WASHINGTON STATE FIRE HAZARD MAP …………………………………………………... 4 -247 MAP 4.10-2 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PRECAUTION LEVEL SHUTDOWN ZONE …………………………… 4 -248 FIGURE 4.10-1 CARBON COPY FIRE AUGUST 2006 ……………….……………………………..……….. 4 -249 MAP 4.10-3 WASHINGTON STATE DNR WILDLAND FIRE STATISTICS: 1973-2018 …..………. 4 -251 TABLE 4.10-1 DNR WILDLAND RESPONSE SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION: 2010-2019 ….… 4 -252 MAP 4.10-4 PIERCE COUNTY FIRE OCCURANCES 2010-2019 ………………………………..……..… 4 -253 TABLE 4.10-2 PIERCE, KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRES ….………………………………….. 4 -254
Technological Hazards
Abandoned Mines FIGURE 4.11-1 WARNING SIGN POSTED AT MINE ENTRANCE……………………………………..…… 4 -259 TABLE 411-1 SOME PIERCE COUNTY NAMED COAL MINES…………………………………………….… 4 -260 FIGURE 4.11-2 LADY WELLINGTON MINE TIPPLE……………………………………………………….…… 4 -261 MAP 4.11-1 MINE HAZARD AREAS OF PIERCE COUNTY……………………………………………………. 4 -262 34 FIGURE 4.T1-3 PACIFIC COAST COAL MINE TIPPLE, CARBONADO……………………………….…… 4 -264
Active Threat / Attack Tactics FIGURE 4.12-1 ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS IN US FROM 2000-2017 INCIDENTS …………… 4 -270 FIGURE 4.12-2 ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS IN US FROM 2000-2017 CASUALTY ……….…… 4 -271 FIGURE 4.12-3 ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS IN US FROM 2000-2017 LOCATION ……….…… 4 -272 TABLE 4.12-1 OCCURANCES IN THE PUGET SOUND ………………………………………………………. 4 -274
Civil Disturbance MAP 4.13-1 CIVIL DISTURBANCE HIGH PROBABILITY LOCATIONS ……………………….…….…… 4 -281 MAP 4.13-2 CIVIL DISTURBANCE HIGH PROBABILITY LOCATIONS ZOOMED IN …….…….…… 4 -282
Cyber Attack TABLE 4.14-1 REORTED INCIDENTS IN THE US BETWEEN LATE 2010 TO EARLY 2013 ……… 4 -289
Dam Failure FIGURE 4.15-1 REASONS FOR DAM FAILURES NATIONALLY………………………………………..…… 4 -293 TABLE 4. 15-1 PIERCE COUNTY DAMS THAT POSE A RISK TO THE PUBLIC…………………..…… 4 -295 TABLE 4. 15-1 PIERCE COUNTY HIGH AND SIGNIFICANT RISK DAMS………………………….…… 4 -298 TABLE 4. 15-2 SELECT DAM FAILURES IN WASHINGTON STATE…………………………………….… 4 -299 FIGURE 4. 15-2 MUD MT DAM INTAKE…………………………………………………………………………… 4 -300
Energy Emergency FIGURE 4.16-1 THE CARRIER LEXINGTON PROVIDING ELECTRICITY………………………………… 4-307
Epidemic/Pandemic FIGURE 4.17-1 INDIVIDUALS HOPING TO AVOID CONTACTING DISEASE……………………..…… 4-318
Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.18-1 LIST OF CONSTITUENTS OR INGREDIENTS FOUND IN BAKKEN CRUDE OIL … 4-321 TABLE 4. 18-2 REPORTED IDENTIFIED TOP FIVE FACILITIES ……………………………….…………. 4-322 FIGURE 4. 18-1 EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL, 1989…………………………………………………….………. 4-323 TABLE 4. 18-3 PIERCE COUNTY SPILL DATA FROM May 2018-May 2019 ……………………………. 4-324 FIGURE 4. 18-2 DALCO PASSAGE OIL SPILL CLEAN UP…………………………………………….………. 4-326
Pipelines18 TABLE 4.19-1 CITIES & TOWNS WITH INTERSTATE PIPELINES…………………………………….…… 4-330 FIGURE 4.19-1 OLYMPIC PIPELINE RUPTURE 06/10/99………………………………………………..…… 4-331 MAP 4.19-1PIERCE COUNTY PIPELINES…………………………………………………………………………… 4-332 FIGURE 4.19-2 WATCOM FALLS PARK, 2003……………………………………………………………….…… 4-335
Terrorism
Transportation TABLE 4.21-1 AIRPORTS IN PIERCE COUNTY………………………………………………………………..… 4 -345 TABLE 4.21-2 FERRY SERVICE IN PIERCE COUNTY………………………………………………………..… 4 -347 FIGURE 4.21-1 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS/CATASTROPHIC FAILURES PIERCE COUNTY 4 -348
35 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction Public Law 106-390 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was passed by Congress on October 30th, 2000. This act required local jurisdictions to have a disaster mitigation plan in order to obtain either Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds.
The Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally completed in 2008 and included 48 jurisdictions; having worked together for over two years. This Base Plan with 48 Addenda received final approval from FEMA in November 2008. In 2009 a Phase II and a Phase III were completed adding an additional 21 Addenda to the existing Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan and bringing the total Addenda to 68 (several mergers in Fire Districts changed the original numbers). The final approval from FEMA for these additional addenda came on January 13, 2010. In addition, there are eight health and medical hazard mitigation plans that were completed under a contract from Multi-Care Organization and these have also been incorporated into the larger Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A review and update from the original plan that expired on November 24, 2013 was completed and FEMA granted an extension allowing for further hazard analysis incorporating HAZUS-MH. That update encompassed the work of the 75 original jurisdictions under the direction and guidance of staff from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management. In addition to the original jurisdictions, one new jurisdiction; Tanner Electric Company was added bringing the total Addenda to 76. A complete review of the July 23, 2015 edition occurred during 2019 and 2020. This current update originally began with the 76 existing Addenda with 5 deciding not to update their plans bringing the number down to 71. Two jurisdictions having stand alone mitigation plans decided to join the Region 5 Mitigation Program and an additional 3 jurisdictions developed their first-time plans bringing the total Addenda back up to 76. The Process Section of this document details the complete process to accomplish this update. (Section 1 – Process)
Homeland Security Region 5 is congruent with Pierce County. While technically the two are interchangeable on a geographic level they are not interchangeable on the planning level. This plan, and the commitment of those whose energy created it, is a testament to the resolve of the jurisdictions to make Region 5, Pierce County, a safer more enjoyable place to work, live, and thrive. These 76 jurisdictions include 20 cities and towns and unincorporated Pierce County, 12 fire districts, 14 school districts and 1 university, 14 water purveyors and electric companies, 7 special purpose districts, and 7 health and medical organizations.
PAGE ES-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 36 This plan is an all hazard mitigation plan. As such it addresses those hazards that are considered part of the natural environment of Pierce County as well as those most common technical hazards. Though not required for a federally approved Mitigation Plan, Pierce County is an EMAP (Emergency Management Accreditation Program) County and as such must include technological hazards as well.
Traditionally many of the hazards were considered independently. For the purposes of this Plan some consolidation was done. For example, snowstorms, ice storms, tornadoes, and windstorms were all combined into a single category, severe weather. The other traditional hazards that are included are avalanche, drought, earthquake, flood, landslide, tsunami and seiche, volcano, and wildland/urban interface fires. Due to the extensive research that has been conducted the past few years into the effects of climate change the decision was made to provisionally include it in the Plan, but without attempting to address mitigation measures related to it. As more is understood about the consequences for the local jurisdictions, mitigation measures may be included in future editions of the Plan.
Additionally, the following technological hazards were reviewed including abandoned mines, civil disturbance, dam failure, energy emergencies, epidemics, hazardous materials, pipeline hazards, terrorism, and transportation accidents. Though there is not a lot of documentation on these types of events in the greater Puget Sound area, extensive research was done for the Pierce County Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) Guide and updated in 2019.
Natural Hazards
Some but not all of these hazards have had a major impact on the jurisdictions within the Homeland Security Region 5 boundaries. Of the 9 natural hazards that affect Pierce County, avalanche is the only one that affects very few jurisdictions. Avalanches are a factor in the higher mountainous areas of Region 5; areas that are predominately outside the boundaries of the 76 jurisdictions.
Drought has intermittently created problems for citizens of all 76 jurisdictions. Generally not reaching disaster proportions, it strains the ability of water purveyors to supply the public with enough water to carry on their normal activities. Drought can have variable effects depending on the location within the Region and type of businesses that are affected. Agriculturally based businesses and a few types of industry will feel the effects the earliest and usually the most. It is not until a drought has occurred for over the course of some years that citizens in the Region begin to feel its effects in their everyday activities.
The earthquake threat is becoming better known through the research done by both governmental and educational organizations. We no longer have to rely on recorded earthquakes of the past 150 years. Research has shown that we have three distinct earthquake threats in Region 5. Deep earthquakes like the 2001 Nisqually earthquake that was magnitude 6.8; earthquakes on the Seattle or Tacoma Faults that could have a magnitude up to 8.0; and subduction earthquakes located off the Washington Coast that could have a magnitude as high as 9.0. An earthquake of any of these types could cause millions if not billions of dollars of damage within the Region.
PAGE ES-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 37
Floods are the cause of most federal disaster declarations that include Pierce County. The last two major floods to impact Pierce County were the January 2009 flood and December 2007 flood. Both of these caused millions of dollars worth of damage to both the private and public sectors.
The landslide hazard in Pierce County includes slopes identified as having over a 15% rise. Landslides happen with frequently both during and after rainstorms and earthquakes In the County, to date none have been catastrophic. However, with continuing population expansion into areas with landslide potential, the possibility of a large slide damaging multiple properties and possibly injuring or killing citizens continues to increase.
The severe weather hazard includes the wide variety of weather problems jurisdictions in Pierce County will encounter. Windstorms, hail, snow, ice storms, and tornadoes have all impacted the County in the past. The most recent example was the federal disaster declaration for the Christmas snow and freezing temperatures of December 2008.
The tsunami section includes seiche as a problem that may impact the County in the future. Tsunami is a Japanese word meaning large harbor wave. Pierce County has been impacted by three tsunamis generated in Puget Sound in the past 120 years. The largest of these, the 1894 tsunami, originated in Commencement Bay, destroyed 300 feet of dock and sent a ten-foot wave into Old Town Tacoma.
A close relative of the tsunami is the seiche. Formed in an enclosed body of water, it is likened to a large basin of water where one side is lifted a little and the resulting waves are reflected back and forth from shore to shore over time. Seiches in Pierce County could happen in lakes or to some extent in the southern portion of Puget Sound.
Pierce County’s volcano problem largely stems from Mt. Rainier. There is a small potential for ash from other volcanoes in the Cascades, especially Mt. St. Helens. Mt. Rainier is the only volcano with the high potential for inundating the major river valleys in the County with mud (by a lahar) up to 30 or more feet deep.
The wildland/urban interface fire (WUI) problem faced by the jurisdictions is directly related to the quantity of unimproved/forested land they have in their boundaries. The Department of Natural Resources reports that there are one or two WUI fires in the Pierce/King County area every couple of years. Most are of small size and do not affect large areas, but the possibility of a large-scale fire is always there.
Technological Hazards
Known abandoned mines in Pierce County are all located in the eastern part of the County and thus only affect those jurisdictions in that vicinity. Potential damage from abandoned mines includes collapse of buildings or roads built over old mine shafts, but most of these are in less populated areas of the County and the threat is limited.
PAGE ES-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 38 Civil unrest or disturbance is of higher probability in the larger cities and areas with a higher population density. This can, spill into rural areas as situations escalate. Generally it requires a seed incident and an adequate population to get started.
In Pierce County there are 33 dams and dikes; most owned by Puget Sound Energy and Tacoma Public Utilities. Of these, three are considered high risk for dam failure and five others at considerable risk according to the number of people in the threat area.
An energy emergency may happen anywhere in the County. It may happen to a small community, or it may be County or even western Washington-wide. The most frequent energy emergencies exist during winter storms. The breaking of power lines due to trees toppling or branches breaking is the usual cause.
Epidemics and pandemics have, in the past impacted every jurisdiction and they will continue to do so in the future. To what extent they infect the public depends on their ease of transmittal.
Hazardous materials incidents may be either generated from a fixed site or the result of a transportation related accident or release.
Current Pierce County pipelines include Northwest Pipeline Corp, Olympic Pipeline Co, and U.S. Oil and Refining Co. Between these they contain 80.93 miles of natural gas pipeline and 44.68 miles of liquid petroleum product pipeline in the County and this defines the pipeline hazard in Pierce County.
Terrorist incidents can occur at any time or place where a group can justify or rationalize their action. They have occurred in major metropolitan areas such as bombings in New York and other major cities and they have occurred in forests of Washington and Oregon. Terrorism exists in every state in the nation.
The various forms of transportation covering the majority of the County have considerable potential for Transportation accidents that could threaten Pierce County’s infrastructure, its citizens and their livelihood.
Because these hazards continually threaten the citizens of the County, Pierce County developed a mitigation plan in 2004, assisted eight other jurisdictions with their plan development prior to the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2008 and now we update the 2008 plan to include all previous jurisdictions. Each plan completed brings another segment of the community closer to being disaster resilient.
DMA 2000 and the Plan Purpose FEMA defines hazard mitigation as those actions taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people, property, the social infrastructure, or the environment from hazards and their effects. Hazard mitigation planning is the process of determining the best means of reducing or eliminating these risks.
PAGE ES-4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 39
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the federal impetus for the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan. This act, amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, added a new section 322 on Mitigation Planning. Section 322 requires each jurisdiction wishing to receive mitigation funds through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, to abate or reduce the threat from local hazards by means of an approved mitigation plan. This legislation is codified as 44 CFR Part 201. The specifics that local jurisdictions are to follow in developing their plans are outlined in 44 CFR Part 201.6.
The regulatory directive included in the Federal Statement of Purpose under 44 CFR 201.1 subpart (b) states:
“The purpose of mitigation planning is for State, local, and Indian tribal governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce losses from those hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide range of resources.”
Taking the Federal Statement of Purpose as a guide, the Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan team has developed the following Region 5 Plan Purpose:
The 76 Region 5 jurisdictions covered in this Plan, in an effort to develop disaster resilient communities by breaking the hazard cycle, joined together to develop this mitigation plan. Over time, working independently and in coordination with other jurisdictions, each jurisdiction through hazard risk assessments, the administration of hazard mitigation grant programs, and developing a coordinated approach to mitigation strategy at the local, state, and regional levels, will contribute to the safety and well being of citizens throughout the Region.
In seeking accordance with Federal requirements and the individual jurisdictions mission statements, the Plan Purpose is the foundation for the Plan’s Goals.
The Plan’s Goals All jurisdictions worked together to come up with a list of goals that would represent their views and will create a foundation for the mitigation measures they develop. The goals are:
• Protect Life and Property, • Ensure Continuity of Operations, • Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, • Protect or Restore Natural Resources, • Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, and • Promote a Sustainable Economy.
PAGE ES-5 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 40 Each mitigation measure in the individual jurisdictions portion of the plan addresses one or more of these goals. In many cases the measures address multiple goals or even all of the goals.
The 76 Jurisdictions and the Process Prior to the end of 2004, Emergency Management Planning Staff had been working on local jurisdiction mitigation plans. However, these were done in small increments of one or two at a time. In December of 2004 Pierce County Emergency Management consulted with many jurisdictions throughout the County to determine the interest in combining the work into developing a joint plan to cover many jurisdictions at the same time. This would speed up the process of plan development allowing many more jurisdictions the opportunity to improve their mitigation of natural hazards, but also to become eligible for both pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds. 48 jurisdictions decided to work together on the Plan with the County and that initial planning effort was completed in 2008.
In 2009 and 2010 an additional 21 jurisdictions elected to develop hazard mitigation plans with Pierce County and those plans were adopted under the original base plan from 2008 and added as addenda to that plan. This brought our total jurisdiction plans to 68 (two fire districts merged eliminating one of the original 48).
In 2009 the Multi-Care Organization applied for a planning grant for PDM funding and received a grant to develop a hazard mitigation plan for Multi-Care. They immediately asked for other health care organizations to join with them in their planning effort and then asked Pierce County to lead them in the process. These plans were completed and adopted in 2012.
The review process began in 2012 to update the original mitigation plans, an additional jurisdiction, Tanner Electric, came forward and asked to be included in this planning effort. This brought our total jurisdictions to 76 for this plan.
During 2017, the City of Puyallup asked to be included with the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation planning efforts and completed and adopted their plan in 2018, bringing the total jurisdictional plans to 77.
The second review process began in 2019 and one more city asked to be included in the planning effort. In addition, two more utility companies and a special purpose district also joined the early stages of the update. During the early phases of the review process 3 Special Purpose Districts and 2 jurisdictions from the Medical Organizations opted to not update their plans at this time. With gaining 5 jurisdictions and then loosing 5 our number remained the same with 76 Addendum.
These jurisdictions were split into six separate planning groups of similar or related interests, with an additional group just for the unincorporated Pierce County Addenda at the beginning of the review process. In addition each jurisdiction was grouped to a regional group based on their location in the County and commonality of hazards. These geographic groups were to facilitate
PAGE ES-6 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 41 relationship building and local collaborative planning between jurisdictions in an effort to bring increased resiliency to their communities. The six planning groups, with their geographic group in parentheses, are shown in Table ES-1 Region 5 Planning Groups. Table ES-1 Region 5 Planning Groups Cities and Towns Group (21) School Group (15) 1. City of Bonney Lake (NE) 1. Carbonado School District (NE) 2. City of Buckley (NE) 2. Clover Park School District (SW) 3. City of DuPont (SW) 3. Dieringer School District (NE) 4. City of Edgewood (N) 4. Eatonville School District (C) 5. City of Fife (N) 5. Fife School District (N) 6. City of Fircrest (N) 6. Franklin Pierce School District (C) 7. City of Gig Harbor (W) 7. Orting School District (NE) 8. City of Lakewood (SW) 8. Pacific Lutheran University (C) 9. City of Milton (N) 9. Peninsula School District (W) 10. City of Orting (NE) 10. Puyallup School District (C) 11. City of Puyallup (C) 11. Steilacoom School District No. 1 (SW) 12. City of Roy (C) 12. Sumner-Bonney Lake School District (NE) 13. City of Sumner (NE) 13. Tacoma School District (N) 14. City of Tacoma (N) 14. University Place School District (SW) 15. City of University Place (SW) 15. White River School District (NE) 16. Town of Carbonado (NE) 17. Town of Eatonville (C) 18. Town of South Prairie (NE) 19. Town of Steilacoom (SW) 20. Town of Wilkeson (NE) 21. Unincorporated Pierce County Fire Group (12) Utility Group (14) 1. West Pierce Fire & Rescue (PCFD #3) (SW) 1. Clear Lake Water District (SE) 2. Gig Harbor Fire & Medic One (PCFD #5) (W) 2. Firgrove Mutual Water Company (C) 3. Central Pierce Fire & Rescue (PCFD #6) (C) 3. Fruitland Mutual Water Company (C) 4. Browns Point – Dash Point (PCFD #13) (N) 4. Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (C) 5. Riverside Fire & Rescue (PCFD #14) (N) 5. Lakeview Light and Power (SW) 6. Key Peninsula Fire (PCFD #16) (W) 6. Lakewood Water District (SW) 7. South Pierce Fire District #17 (SW) 7. Mt. View-Edgewood Water Company (N) 8. Orting Valley Fire & Rescue (PCFD #18) (NE) 8. Ohop Mutual Light Company (SE) 9. Graham Fire and Rescue (PCFD #21) (C) 9. Parkland Light and Water 10. East Pierce Fire and Rescue #22 (NE) 10. Peninsula Light Company 11. Ashford – Elbe (PCFD #23) (C) 11. Spanaway Water Company (C) 16. Anderson Island Fire & Rescue (PCFD #27) 12. Summit Water and Supply Company (C) (SW) 13. Tanner Electric (SW) 14. Valley Water District (E) Special Purpose Districts (7) Health and Medical Group (7) 1. Crystal River Ranch Association N(E) 1. MultiCare Health System (N) 2. Crystal Village Homeowners Association (NE) 2. Franciscan Health System (N) 3. Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma (N) 3. Kaiser Permanente (N) 4. Pierce Transit (SW) 4. Cascade Regional Blood Services (N) 5. Port of Tacoma (N) 5. Community Health Care (N) 6. Riviera Community Club (SW) 6. Western State Hospital (SW) 7. Taylor Bay Beach Club Inc. (W) 7. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (N) C – Central Planning Area, NE – North East Planning Area, N – North Planning Area, W – West Planning Area, SW – Southwest Planning Area,
PAGE ES-7 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION BASE PLAN 42 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM A-1 REGION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION
PREPARED FOR:
City of Bonney Lake 19306 Bonney Lake Blvd. Bonney Lake, WA 98391
In Cooperation with:
Pierce County Department of Emergency Management 2501 S. 35th Street, Suite D Tacoma, WA 98409
43 44 ADDENDUM A-1
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 – PROCESS ……………………………………………………..……………………………… 1-1 SECTION 2 – PROFILE…………………………………………………………………….……………….. 2-1 SECTION 3 – CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION ……………………………………………….…….. 3-1 SECTION 4 – RISK ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………….…….. 4-1 SECTION 5 – MITIGATION STRATEGY ………………………………………………………..…….. 5-1 SECTION 6 – INFRASTRUCTURE ………………………………………………………………….…… 6-1 SECTION 7 – MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………….……… 7-1
Appendices
Plan Adoption ………………………………………………………………….………………………….…….. A Planning Team …………………………………………………………………………….……………………. B Plan Revisions …………………………………………………………………………………………..………. C City of Bonney Lake and Pierce County Hazus-MH Scenarios .…………………………………. D Documentation Records ………….………………………………………………………………………… E Completed or Deferred Mitigation Strategies …………………………………………………………. F
45 (This page intentionally left blank)
46 Section 1
Plan Process Requirements
Planning Process---Requirement §201.6(b):
An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
• Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the new or updated plan? • Does the new or updated plan indicate who was involved in the current planning process? (Who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) • Does the new or updated plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?) • Does the new or updated plan discuss the opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? • Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? • Does the updated plan document how the planning team reviewed and analyzed each section of the plan and whether each section was revised as part of the update process?
47 SECTION 1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 UPDATE CITY OF BONNEY LAKE PROCESS
Table of Contents
PLAN PROCESS REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 CHANGES TO JURISDICTION PLAN IN THIS DOCUMENT ...... 3 CHANGE MATRIX ...... 3 PLAN PROCESS ...... 7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ...... 7
PLANNING TEAM ...... 8
PLANNING TEAM MEETINGS ...... 9
ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETINGS ...... 13
JOINT PLANNING REQUIREMENT ...... 13 ENDNOTE ...... 14
48 Changes To Jurisdiction Plan in this Document This Addendum to the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan includes the following changes that are documented as a result of a complete review and update of the existing plan for the City of Bonney Lake. The purpose of the following change matrix is to advise the reader of these changes updating this plan from the original document approved in November 2008. The purpose for the changes is three-fold: 1) the Federal Law (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Part 201.4) pertaining to Mitigation Planning has changed since the original Plan was undertaken; 2) this Plan will be an Addendum to the 2020 comprehensive and FEMA approved Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan and 3) the Local Mitigation Planning Requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 201.6 (d) (3) Plan Review states Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for HMGP project grant funding. This document when completed and approved will become the City of Bonney Lake Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Change Matrix This Matrix of Changes documents the pertinent changes made from the July 2015 City of Bonney Lake Plan for the Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan; 2020-2025 Update. Most of the changes are a matter of additional detail, more information provided, and in some cases a response to new requirements. This 2020-2025 version represents a complete review and update by City of Bonney Lake and Pierce County Emergency Management using a detailed process for development and following an established format. During this procedure, all web links have been verified and updated.
Table 1-1 Change Matrix – City of Bonney Lake Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020-2025 Update Section 1 – Plan Development, Process Section Section or Part of Plan New in 2020 Plan Section 1 – Process Section Section 1 – Process Section The 2020 Process Section contains updated Planning Meeting overviews, Planning Team Members, Drop-in schedule, Public Comment dates, Elected Official Meetings and updated dates for Plans that collaborate with the mitigation plan.
Section 2 – Participating Jurisdiction Profiles Section or Part of Plan Previous 2020 Plan The 2020 version of the Information was current as of Profile has been reviewed and Section 2 – Profile 2010 Census Data. updated. The Infrastructure Summary section was updated
49 showing a significant increase in tax parcel values. In addition, the Economic Summary was updated also showing an increase. Information was current as of The 2010 Census Data 2010 Census Data. remained for population data and is the current GIS available information from Pierce County. Once the 2020 Census data becomes available in Pierce County GIS format, population data figures will be updated in the Profile Section 2 and the Risk Assessment Section 4. A new Demographic Analysis paragraph was added to the 2020 Mitigation Plan to elaborate on Bonney Lake’s demographics in more detail and capturing some of the at-
risk populations. This also allowed the city to provide an updated overview of its growing population beyond the 2010 census which is outdated.
Section 3 – Capability Identification Section or Part of Plan Previous 2020 Plan Section 3 – Capability The Capability Tables shown The 2020 Capability Section in the previous plan are in a has been improved and similar format. updated to show current information from the jurisdiction.
Section 4 – Vulnerability, Risk Analysis Section or Part of Plan 2020 Plan Vulnerability and Hazard Impact Analysis This section was added to provide a better understanding on how the identified hazards affect the City of Bonney Lake and its critical infrastructure. The Base Plan has a
50 comprehensive Risk Assessment Section identifying 19 hazards Pierce County is vulnerable too. Disaster Declarations Charts. The Geological, Meteorological and Technological Charts have been updated to reflect current changes in Pierce County’s Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA). Major changes include updating the maps, figures and table column to align with the changes in the HIRA. Technological Hazards added “Active Threat” and “Cyber Attack” under the Terrorism category. Hazard Maps - Overview of Data Source This section was added to provide the reader Descriptions with a better understanding of the data source that was used to produce the hazard maps. The previous version of the plan contained The 2020 Risk Section includes updated maps hazard maps. and contains additional hazard maps such as deep/shallow landslides susceptibility. The previous version included specific The 2020 Risk Section includes completely analysis showing vulnerability of population, updated tables showing vulnerability of land and infrastructure according to Census population, (where different hazard maps were 2010 and 2013/2014 tax parcel data. used) land and infrastructure using Census 2010 data and 2019/2020 tax parcel data.
Section 5 – Mitigation Strategy Section or Part of Plan 2020 Plan The previous document used the standard The 2020 Mitigation Section was drafted using goals as outlined for the entire project. specific goals and objectives written by the jurisdictions to their specific hazards and concerns. The previous document contained a Mitigation The new document uses the same format as Measure Matrix chart followed by written the original plan with the addition of a ‘Status descriptions of each individual measure. Update” table under each mitigation measure. This provides the opportunity to update each mitigation strategy and track the status. New measures have been added to both the Matrix and the individual measure descriptions. Measures completed in the past five years have been moved to a historical appendix in the plan to track projects completed by the jurisdiction.
Section 6 – Infrastructure
51 Section or Part of Plan 2020 Plan The previous plan used a full table with details The 2020 plan uses the same table. The tables on each piece of critical infrastructure. In have been reviewed and updated by the addition, a matrix summary of hazards and jurisdiction. This section is only available to dependencies affecting the critical the jurisdiction due to the sensitivity of infrastructure was completed. information contained. A disclosure statement acts as a placeholder for Section 6.
Section 7 – Plan Maintenance Section or Part of Plan 2020 Plan The previous Plan Maintenance for the The 2020 version of the Plan Maintenance jurisdiction was very similar in format to the borrows from the format and content of the newer version for 2020. original; however, the entire document has been reviewed and updated to current information.
Section 8 – Other Changes Section or Part of Plan 2020 Plan The previous document contained four The 2020 Plan contains six Appendices Appendices. including: place for the final resolution and approval letter from FEMA, list of jurisdiction’s planning team, a chart for any changes, 2014 HAZUS analysis, documentation records for Public Outreach events and a historical appendix for completed projects. The Acronym list appears in the Base Plan for the entire project.
52 Plan Process The Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan Process Section is a discussion of the planning process used to update the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan (Pierce County is Region 5 for Homeland Security (HLS) in Washington State, including how the process was prepared, who aided in the process, and the public involvement.
The Plan update is developed around all major components identified in 44 CFR 201.6, including:
• Public Involvement Process; • Jurisdiction Profile; • Capability Identification; • Risk Assessment; • Mitigation Strategy; • Infrastructure Section; and, • Plan Maintenance Procedure.
Below is a summary of those elements and the processes involved in their development.
Public Involvement Process
Public participation is a key component to strategic planning processes. Citizen participation offers citizens the chance to voice their ideas, interests, and opinions.
“Involving stakeholders who are not part of the core team in all stages of the process will introduce the planning team to different points of view about the needs of the community. It will also provide opportunities to educate the public about hazard mitigation, the planning process, and findings, and could be used to generate support for the mitigation plan.”1
In order to accomplish this goal and to ensure that the updated Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan is comprehensive, the six planning groups in conjunction with Pierce County Emergency Management developed a public participation process of three components:
A Planning Team comprised of knowledgeable individual representatives of HLS Region 5 area and its hazards; Hazard Meetings to target the specialized knowledge of individuals working with populations or areas at risk from all hazards; and Public meetings to identify common concerns and ideas regarding hazard mitigation and to discuss specific goals, objectives and measures of the mitigation plan. This section discusses each of these components in further detail below with public participation outlined in each. Integrating public participation into the development of the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan update has helped to ensure an accurate depiction of the Region’s risks, vulnerabilities, and mitigation priorities.
53 Planning Team
The Planning Team was organized early in 2019. The individual Region 5 Hazards Mitigation Planning Team members understand the portion of Pierce County containing their specific jurisdiction, including how residents, businesses, infrastructure, and the environment may be affected by all hazard events. The members are experienced in past and present mitigation activities and represent those entities through which many of the mitigation measures would be implemented. The Planning Team guided the update of the Plan, assisted in reviewing and updating goals and measures, identified stakeholders, and shared local expertise to create a more comprehensive plan. The Planning Team was comprised of:
Table 1-2 Planning Teams – Discipline Group NAME TITLE JURISDICTION-DEPARTMENT Woody Edvalson Administrative Services Director City of Bonney Lake Alan Predmore Fire Chief/Emergency Manager City of Buckley Jeffrey Wilson Director of Community Development City of DuPont Micah Lundborg Chief of Police City of Edgewood Pete Fisher Police Chief City of Fife Robert Eugley Patrol Officer City of Fife John Cheesman Chief of Police City of Fircrest Kelly Busey Chief of Police City of Gig Harbor Carl Desimas City Planner City of Gig Harbor John Unfred Assistant Police Chief City of Lakewood Tony Hernandez Police Chief City of Milton Mark Bethune City Manager City of Orting Kirstin Hofmann Emergency Manager City of Puyallup Chief Armitage Police Chief City of Roy Officer Armitage Police Officer City of Roy Ryan Windish Community Development Director City of Sumner Ute Scofield Emergency Manager City of Tacoma Jacob Rain EM Program Coordinator City of Tacoma Lisa Petorak Human Resources Manager City of University Place Jack Ecklund Dir. of Engineering & Capital Projects City of University Place Daillene Argo Clerk-Treasurer Town of Carbonado Abby Gribi Town Administrator Town of Eatonville Glen Yates Eatonville Police Department Town of Eatonville Emily Terrell Consultant Town of South Prairie Paul Loveless Town Administrator Town of Steilacoom Alan Predmore Fire Chief Town of Wilkeson
54 Table 1-3 Planning Teams – Regional Group NAME TITLE JURISDICTION-DEPARTMENT Woody Edvalson Director/EM Coordinator City of Bonney Lake Alan Predmore Fire Chief/EM Director City of Buckley ~ Town of Wilkeson ~ Town of Carbonado Daillene Argo Town Clerk-Treasurer Town of Carbonado Mark Bethune City Administrator City of Orting Emily Terrell Contracted Planner Town of South Prairie Ryan Windish Community Development Director City of Sumner Trisha Sumners Town Clerk-Treasurer Town of Wilkeson Jim Jaques Fire Chief, Asst. East Pierce Fire & Rescue Zane Gibson Fire Chief Orting Valley Fire Scott Hubbard Superintendent Carbonado Historical School District #19 Jessie Sprouse Principal/Superintendent Carbonado Historical School District #19 Kirsten Parker Director of Human Resources Dieringer School District Chris Willis Executive Director of Student Support Orting School District Services Holly Mortenson Payroll Specialist & Ops Support Asst. Orting School District Cheryl Collins Risk Manager Sumner-Bonney Lake School District Michelle Bradshaw Intervention Specialist White River School District Jer Argo Director of Business and Operations White River School District James Oliver Assistant Director of Operations Community Health Care Curt Simonson HOA President Crystal River Ranch Association Gary Castell HOA Resident Crystal Village Homeowners Assoc. Woody Edvalson Director/EM Coordinator City of Bonney Lake Alan Predmore Fire Chief/EM Director City of Buckley ~ Town of Wilkeson ~ Town of Carbonado Daillene Argo Town Clerk-Treasurer Town of Carbonado Mark Bethune City Administrator City of Orting Emily Terrell Contracted Planner Town of South Prairie Ryan Windish Community Development Director City of Sumner Trisha Sumners Town Clerk-Treasurer Town of Wilkeson
Planning Team Meetings
The Planning Team held 7 Planning Team Meetings either in their Discipline Groups or Regional Planning Groups. Meeting in Regional Planning Groups supported a whole community planning approach which either developed new or stronger relationships amongst jurisdictions. This allowed for an integration of mitigation strategies for regions sharing the commonality in hazards. There was a total of 45 meetings from February 2019 to January 2020 between all Planning Groups. Additional working group drop-in workshops were provided for jurisdictions to continue to work on and update their plans. Two “drop-in” workshops were
55 provided each month from January through June alternating between morning and afternoons to accommodate work schedules. The Planning Teams Discipline Groups: City and Town Group, Fire Group, School Group, Special Purpose Group, Utility Group, Medical Group and Unincorporated Pierce County Group. These discipline groups will continue to meet on an annual basis for the relationship building and sharing of mitigation strategies and ideas.
The Planning Team Regional Groups broken down into five geographical areas in Pierce County: West Group (all of Gig Harbor, Key Peninsula, Herron Island, Fox Island and Raft Island), SW Group (Lakewood, Anderson Island, Steilacoom), Central Group (Puyallup, Graham, Eatonville), NE Group (Buckley, Carbonado, Bonney Lake, Wilkeson), North Group ( Tacoma, Fife, Edgewood, Sumner). The Regional Groups were developed based on geographic location and the commonality of hazards shared and was new with this update. This provided for better community planning, relationship building, and collaboration of mitigation strategies ultimately leading to community resiliency. These Regional groups will continue to meet on an annual basis and as sub committees are developed to work on specific projects the frequency of meetings will potentially increase.
Table 1-4 Planning Team Meetings Planning Team Meeting #1 – Cities & Towns: PCEM Puyallup Room – February 21, 2019 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Wyatt Godfrey conducted the meeting and the Planning Team discussed the following items: Introduction of Planning Team, Review of the history of the Grant Application, Defining the Planning Requirements, How We Establish the In-Kind Match, Benefits of Developing a Plan, Defining the Planning Process, Establishing the Planning Team Meetings, Elected Official Meetings and Public Comment Meetings, reviewing each jurisdiction’s profile information, and defining next steps. Planning Team Meeting #2 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – March 18, 2019 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Bailee Godfrey conducted the meeting and the Planning Team discussed the following items: Introduction of Planning Team as this was our first Regional Planning meeting and there were new members present. We reviewed of items presented at previous meeting, Defining the Planning Requirements, Defining the Process, Establishing the Planning Team Meetings, Elected Official Meetings and Public Comment Meetings, and explaining the next steps. This meeting focused on continuing review of the Profile Section, an introduction to begin thinking about mitigation strategies to include a review of what measures from their original plan have already been completed and thinking about new measures they may like to add. In addition, this group discussed the Capability Section and how to recognize capabilities that already exist within the jurisdiction. Everyone was reminded to set up their Elected Official meetings. Everyone was given a copy of their original Section 3 – Capability Section. There was not a Regional Planning Meeting in April of 2019 Planning Team Meeting #3 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – May 15, 2019
56 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Bailee Godfrey conducted the meeting with the majority of the regional jurisdictions present. We reviewed the Profile, Capabilities, and Mitigation Strategy Sections, along with introducing the Risk Assessment Section to the group. We also talked about progress made on the In-Kind Match sheets and pre-authorization approval from jurisdictions’ governing bodies. Finally, we gathered feedback about our Threat and Hazard Identification Workshop held on May 1-2, and everyone’s progress with outreach events for their mitigation plans, especially in relation to fire season starting and the opportunity for communities in this region to incorporate more fire protection and mitigation elements into their planning process. There was not a Regional Planning Meeting in June of 2019 Planning Team Meeting #4 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – July 25, 2019 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Bailee Godfrey reviewed the Profile, Capabilities, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy Sections to see how everyone was coming along with their update process. A reminder was provided for those who had not turned in their in-kind match sheet, as well as for those who had not completed the governing body pre-approval requirement yet. Debbie offered to create jurisdictional maps for public outreach events to bring residents in to talk about hazards that can affect them and how the mitigation plan plays a role in community resilience. Lastly, Todd Kilpatrick, the former Mitigation Grant Program Manager with Washington State Emergency Management Division who now works at Pierce County Emergency Management, spoke to the group about the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDM), potential projects that are eligible for those grants, and the upcoming Mitigation Grant Workshop that’ll be held on August 12th and 19th. There was not a Regional Planning Meeting in August of 2019 Planning Team Meeting #5 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – September 16, 2019 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Wyatt Godfrey reviewed the Profile, Capabilities, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy Sections to check on the jurisdictions’ progress. More specifically, Debbie explained the process of developing new mitigation strategies to add to their plans. This discussion covered how to select a new mitigation strategy, the required components for their strategy development, and the format required to input the strategy into the plan. Feedback was gathered about the August Mitigation Grant Workshop – unanimous positive feedback with a few recommendations to improve for next time. A reminder for the In- Kind Match Sheet and pre-authorization documentation was provided. Finally, the meeting was closed out with a discussion on the progress of meeting the public outreach requirements and ideas for those who had not completed that component yet. Planning Team Meeting #6 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – November 4, 2019
57 Planning Team members Debbie Bailey and Wyatt Godfrey held the meeting with less participation than preferred but included a call-in option for those who couldn’t attend in person. The usual review of previous sections occurred, with the introduction of the Infrastructure and Plan Maintenance Sections. Participants were taught how to fill out the potentially overwhelming tables in the Infrastructure Section and told to review the Plan Maintenance Section for any inaccurate statements or language. Like the previous meeting, a reminder for the In-Kind Match Sheet, pre-authorization documentation, and public outreach documentation was provided. Planning Team Meeting #7 – NE Regional Group: Buckley Fire Station – December 9 2019 The final planning meeting was conducted by Debbie Bailey and Wyatt Godfrey. All sections of the plan were discussed and reviewed to ensure participants’ questions were answered. A detailed discussion of the Mitigation Strategy Section occurred, specifically looking at the integration of new strategies into the plan and how to reorder them by priority. Like the previous meeting, a reminder for the In-Kind Match Sheet, pre-authorization documentation, and public outreach documentation was provided. Participants were informed that in the new year, Pierce County DEM would be hosting two “workshops” a month where jurisdictions can walk in and get help with their plan on an individual basis, instead of only in the previously used group format. The goal is to refine the work that participants have done thus far and craft it into a well-rounded, comprehensive, and usable Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Drop – In Workshop To provide further opportunity for participating jurisdictions to work on their plan updates Pierce County DEM hosted two additional “workshop” meetings per month starting in January 2020. These were not formal meetings but provided individual instruction or assistance to jurisdictions. They were scattered at two-week intervals during the month with alternating morning and afternoon times trying to accommodate busy schedules. Due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic our “drop-in” workshops were canceled for the remainder of the update cycle. We remained available through email and phone call conversations.
Date Location January 7, 2020 – 1:00-3:30 Pierce County - DEM January 23, 2020 – 9:00-11:30 Pierce County - DEM February 11, 2020 – 1:00-3:30 Pierce County - DEM February 27, 2020 – 9:00-11:30 Pierce County - DEM
Public Comment and Process Date Location January 15, 2019 Bonney Lake City Council August 6, 2019 National Night Out August 2019 Bonney Lake Days Celebration July – August 2019 Tunes at Tapps-Allan Yorke City Park November 2019 and Online survey to community members through Pierce County
58 remains available online Emergency Management
In January 2019, the City Council held an open public meeting to discuss the purposes for the City’s participation in the Pierce County-led all-hazard mitigation plan update process. The City Council gave their support for the City to participate in this update.
In addition, the City of Bonney Lake presented a Community Preparedness Survey to participants at the Bonney Lake Days celebration in August 2019. The eight-question survey asked them to rate participants concerns for a list of hazards; personal, business and family preparedness for response to hazards; and sources of information used to inform them about hazards facing the community. In addition, The City also maintains the most current version of the Hazard Mitigation Plan on its public website to inform its residents about hazards facing the City.
Elected Officials Meetings
On January 15, 2019, Bonney Lake City Administrative Director Harwood Edvalson presented an overview of the Hazard Mitigation Plan update process to the Bonney Lake City Council. The major FEMA requirements were discussed, as well as the various sections of the plan, and approval to proceed with the project was granted by the governing body.
Joint Planning Requirement
The City of Bonney Lake has the following identified plan which must collaborate with the mitigation plan; these plans are identified in the table below and must be updated within the predetermined timeline.
Plan Next Update Cultural Arts and Heritage Element June 2024 Community Facilities and Services Element Plan Park Element Capital Facilities Element June 2024 Utilities Element Adoption of Sumner-Bonney Lake Schools District Capital Facility Plans Mobility Element June 2024 Centers Plan 2024 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2025
59 Endnote
1State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide Getting Started: building support for mitigation planning, FEMA 386-1, September 2002, p. 3-1.
60 SECTION 2
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE PROFILE SECTION
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 MISSION STATEMENT ...... 2 SERVICES SUMMARY ...... 2 GEO-POLITICAL SUMMARY ...... 3
GEOGRAPHY ...... 3 POPULATION SUMMARY ...... 5 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 5 SPECIAL POPULATIONS ...... 5 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ...... 5 INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY ...... 7 GENERAL ...... 7 JURISDICTION INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 7 ECONOMY SUMMARY ...... 9 RESOURCE DIRECTORY ...... 10 REGIONAL ...... 11 NATIONAL ...... 11 ENDNOTES ...... 12
61 Mission Statement “The City of Bonney Lake is a balanced community with a residential character that conserves natural amenities while supporting a diverse mix of economic activities. The community provides places for children and residents to meet and socialize, and is a center for diverse cultural and social opportunities such as theater, art, social organization meetings and celebrations. The City promotes a safe, attractive and healthful living environment for residents’ various physical, educational, economic and social activities while maintaining an adequate tax base to provide a high level of accountable, accessible, and efficient local government services. The City is an active participant in interlocal and regional services and planning organizations.”
Services Summary The area of Bonney Lake was established in 1853, but not incorporated until 1949 with just 327 residents. Today, the City of Bonney Lake is home to 21,0601 with a service population well in excess of 37,5002. The jurisdiction provides the following services through their own capabilities:
Table 2-1 City Services3 CITY SERVICES – CITY OF BONNEY LAKE Service Y/N Service Y/N Mayor/City Administrator Yes Municipal Airport No City Attorney Yes Municipal Court Yes City Clerk Yes Public Works/Improvements Yes City Treasurer Yes Comprehensive Planning Yes Sheriff or Police Yes Parking Meter Revenue No Construction and Operation of Boat Harbors, Parks Commissioners Yes Yes Marinas, Docks, etc. City Council Yes Issue Bonds and Levies of General Tax Yes Fire Department/EMS (annexed to East License and Tax Fees Yes Yes Pierce Fire and Rescue) Non-Polluting Power Generation No Parking, Off-street Facilities Yes Hydroelectric Resources No Sanitary Landfill/Refuse Service Yes Radio Communications Yes Sidewalks Yes Streets Yes Storm Drains Yes Wastewater Treatment Yes Streets/Alleys Yes Water Utility Yes Parks and Parkways Yes Public Transportation Systems No Water Pollution Abatement Yes Residential Care Facilities (Not Yes Local Improvement Districts Yes owned by City) Child Care Facilities (Not owned Yes Senior Center Yes by City) Emergency Management Yes Historic Preservation Yes Building Construction Permitting Yes Fire Prevention Yes
62 Geo-Political Summary
Table 2-2 Geo-Political Summary4 Area Elevation Regional Partners Jurisdiction Major Water Features (sq mi) Range (ft.) Shared Borders Land Use Authorities • Lake Tapps • White River Canal • Unincorporated City of • Unincorporated 8.15 540-700 • Lake Bonney Pierce County Bonney Lake Pierce County • Fennel Creek • Bonney Lake • Lake Debra Jane
Geography The City of Bonney Lake sits on the plateau to the east of Sumner and above the White and Puyallup Rivers. The Fennel Creek corridor, a minor stream feature, cuts a natural border through the City’s eastern edge. Bonney Lake incorporates some of Lake Tapps’ southern shores. The city also includes Lake Bonney, for which it is named, and Lake Debra Jane. Kelley Creek flows through the city into Debra Jane Lake. The combined outfalls from Lake Bonney and Lake Debra Jane are received by Fennel Creek. The city has an area of 8.15 square miles, sits at an average elevation of 605 feet and is composed of smaller rolling hills and flatland. Additional geographic description and features are discussed in Chapter 4 under “Geography and Climate.”
63 Map 2-1 City of Bonney Lake - Basemap
64
Population Summary
Demographics
Table 2-3 Population5, 6, 7, 8 Projected Projected Population Projected Population Year 2022 2022 Jurisdiction Population Density Population Served Population Population (people/sq mi) Density Change (%) Served City of 21,060 2,587 17,429 17.68% 2,790 20,510 Bonney Lake Region 5 795,225 440 795,225 -18.39% 359 648,895
Population data in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are outdated and based off the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) 2010 Census data. Once the 2020 Census data becomes available these population numbers will be updated and replaced in the plan. The same situation occurs with all population figures in Section 4 Risk Assessment assessing the risk and vulnerability for all identified hazards in Unincorporated Pierce County.
Special Populations
Table 2-4 Special Populations9 Population % of Population % of Jurisdiction Population 65 Plus Total Under 20 Total City of Bonney 21,060 1,600 7.6% 5,776 27% Lake Region 5 795,225 87,770 11% 220,351 28%
Demographic Analysis The City of Bonney Lake has grown in area since the last plan update, increasing from 7.35 to 8.15 square miles due to the annexations of Kelley Creek Vista and Delaney neighborhoods (2017). The overall population has increased from the last update, while the population ages 20 and underrepresents 27% of the total population. As a result, the City of Bonney Lake has seen a slight decrease of a younger population, while the population of residents 65 plus years has increased leaving the population vulnerable to hazards due to age relatively the same in comparison to the previous update. Changes in development impacting the demographics of Bonney Lake have been included in Section 4 under “Changes in Development.”
The Pierce County Aging and Disability Board has identified through a June 2019 survey with 932 respondents, the top priorities for older adults and adults with disabilities. The three priorities are food, health care and housing. It is assumed this will be the same in an emergency. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services lists six adult family homes within Bonney Lake and one assisted living facility. The retirement/assisted living facility has 123 units and has purchased adjacent property to double the available units, including a new memory-care unit upon completion of the project.
65
Puget Sound Energy says that 79 individuals within Bonney Lake have self-reported as needing priority attention for electrical energy to support themselves during power outages. Puget Sound Energy encourages such individuals to prepare to support themselves during outages. This will be a consideration in Bonney Lake’s plans for mass sheltering.
66 Infrastructure Summary
General
Table 2-5 Parcel Summary10 # Average Average Improved Jurisdiction Land Value Improved Value Parcels Land Value Value City of Bonney 7,967 $1,437,905,100 $180,483 $2,026,678,500 $254,384 Lake Region 5 328,831 $55,032,560,799 $167,358 $82,766,510,038 $251,699
Total Assessed Value Average Assessed Jurisdiction Value City of $3,464,583,600 $434,867 Bonney Lake Region 5 $137,799,070,837 $419,057
Table 2-6 Housing Summary11 Jurisdiction # Houses Housing Density Avg Year Built Avg Year Built (%) • <1939: 32 • <1939: 0.5% City of • 1940 – 1979: 1,532 • 1940 – 1979: 25% 6,394 870 Bonney Lake • 1980 – 2004: 3,798 • 1980 – 2004 61% • 2005>: 876 • 2005>: 14% • <1939: 34,368 • <1939: 10.6% • 1940 – 1979: 126,363 • 1940 – 1979: 39% Region 5 291,983 162 • 1980 – 2004: 139,894 • 1980 – 2004: 43.2% • 2005>: 22,830 • 2005>: 7.1%
Jurisdiction Infrastructure The following table shows the overview of infrastructure owned by the City of Bonney Lake. The infrastructure is categorized according to the infrastructure sectors as designated by the Department of Homeland Security. This chart is intended as a summary only.
For further details on Department of Homeland Security infrastructure sectors, please see the Process Section 1.
Table 2-7 Owned Infrastructure12 Total Emerg. Trans- Govern- Com- Total Value Infra- Telecomm Water Energy Services portation ment mercial ($) structure 90 3 6 7 56 0 12 0 $44,295,123
67 Map 2.2-Bonney Lake Zoning Map 68 Economy Summary
Table 2-8 Fiscal Summary13 Fund Balance Operating Costs Operating Budgeted Operating Budgeted Avg Fund Balance Jurisdiction as % of (per month) Revenues Expenditures (5 yrs) Operating Cost City of Bonney $1,686,467 $20,924,376 $20,237,606 40% $8,010,091 Lake
Table 2-9 Employment Profile14 City of Pierce Employment Category (SIC) Bonney Lake County Construction/Res 325 24,297 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) 163 13,640 Manufacturing 16 17,239 Retail 1,397 34,957 Services 2,368 132,801 Warehousing, Transportation, and Utilities (WTU) 108 30,278 Government 251 34,915 Education 467 24,382
Table 2-10 Unemployment Rate15 Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate City Bonney Lake 5.2% Region 5 9.6% WA State 8.4%
69 Table 6-11 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)Table Key 2-DIGIT NAICS NAICS CATEGORIES RATING 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 21 Mining 22 Utilities 23 Construction 31-33 Manufacturing 42 Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail Trade 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 51 Information 52 Finance and Insurance 23 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 54 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 61 Educational Services 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 72 Accommodation and Food Services 81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
Table 6-12 North American Industry Classification System (SIC)Table Key
Major sector categories combine NAICS categories as follows SECTOR INDUSTRY COMBINED (SIC)
Construction and Resources (Const/Res): 11,21,23 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE): 52,53 Manufacturing: 31-33 Wholesale Trade Services: 51, 54-56, 61 (private-sector portion), 62,71,72,81 Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (WTU): 22, 42, 48, Government: Public-sector employment, excluding education Education: 61 (public-sector portion)
70 Resource Directory
Regional
• City of Bonney Lake http://www.ci.bonney-lake.wa.us
• Pierce County Government https://piercecountywa.gov/
• Pierce County DEM https://piercecountywa.gov/104/Emergency-Management
• Pierce County Planning & Public Works (PPW) https://piercecountywa.gov/4999/Planning-Public-Works
• Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington (MRSC) http://www.mrsc.org/
National
• US Census http://www.census.gov/
71 Endnotes
1 Estimated annual population from the WA State Office of Financial Management for 2019. 2 Information from the City of Bonney Lake 2018 Water Quality Report. 3 Information from a survey completed by the City. 4 Information from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro (2/2020). 5 “Population” from Census 2010, Office of Financial Management. 6 “Projected Population Change (%)” from Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Dec. 2007. 7 “Projected Population Density” is based on an assumption of the jurisdiction maintaining the same geographic area and boundaries. It does not consider changes in annexation, district mergers, etc. 8 “Projected 2022 Population” from Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Dec. 2007 9 “Special Population” from Census 2010, Office of Financial Management. 10 Information from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro projected for 2/2020. 11 Information from Census 2010, Office of Financial Management. 12 Information obtained from Jurisdiction’s Infrastructure Matrix. 13 Information from City of Bonney Lake current budget. 14 Information from Puget Sound Regional Council based on 2018 data. https://www.psrc.org/covered- employment-estimates. 15 Information from Internet, best available information for February 2020.
72 Section 3 Capability Identification Requirements Planning Process---Requirement §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirements §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. • Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.] • Does the plan describe land uses and development trends? Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance-- -Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. • Does the new or updated plan describe the jurisdiction(s) participation in the NFIP?
PAGE 3-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 73 SECTION 3
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2015-2020 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION SECTION
Table of Contents
CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY ...... 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY - JURISDICTION ...... 4 ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY - REGIONAL ...... 5 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY ...... 6 FISCAL CAPABILITY ...... 7 SPECIFIC CAPABILITY FOR BONNEY LAKE...... 8 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) CAPABILITY ...... 8
NFIP STATUS ...... 8
PAGE 3-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 74
Legal and Regulatory Capability
Regulatory Tools (Ordinances and Codes) Yes or No
Jurisdiction Capabilities Building Construction/Design Construction Codes Yes Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Yes Growth Management Ordinance Yes Critical Area Ordinance Yes Hazard Setback Requirements Yes Hillside and Steep Slope Ordinance Yes Land Use and Regulatory Codes Yes Mechanical Codes Yes Plan Review Requirements Yes Plumbing Codes Yes Real Estate Disclosure Requirements Yes Storm Water Management Yes Subdivision Ordinance or Regulations Yes Tax and License Codes Yes Wildfire Ordinance No Zoning Ordinance Yes
PAGE 3-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 75 Administrative Capability - Jurisdiction
Administrative Tools (Agency, Departments or Programs) Yes or No
Jurisdiction Capabilities Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Yes Board of Adjustments/Hearing Examiner Yes Building Official Yes Chamber of Commerce Yes City/Town Council Yes City/Town Meetings Yes City/Town Planning Commission Yes City/Town Website Yes Commercial Fire Safety/Code Inspection Program – East Pierce Fire & Rescue No Community CPR/First Aid Program – East Pierce Fire & Rescue No Community Emergency Response Teams No Downtown Revitalization Committee Yes Economic Development Board Yes Emergency Manager Yes Engineers Yes Families First Coalition – Sumner-Bonney Lake School District No Fire and Injury Prevention Program – East Pierce Fire & Rescue No Fire Chief – East Pierce Fire & Rescue No Fire Safety & Disaster Classes in Schools No Flood Plan Manager Yes Government TV Access No Grant Writers Yes Home Safety Council No Information included in Utility Bills Yes Lahar Warning System No Planners Yes Planning Commission Yes Police Chief Yes Police Department Yes Public Utility Yes Public Works Department Yes Safe Streets Program Yes Safety Fairs Yes Stream Team Yes Surveyors No
PAGE 3-4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 76 Administrative Capability - Regional
Administrative Tools (Agency, Departments or Programs) Yes or No
Regional Capabilities Local Business Districts Yes Local Department of Emergency Management Yes Local Fire Agencies plus Mutual Aid with others Yes Local Hospitals No Local Law Enforcement Agencies and Mutual Aid with others Yes Local Neighborhood Associations Yes Local Neighborhood Emergency Teams (NET) No Local Newspapers No Local Parks Commission/Board Yes Local Power Companies No Local Parent Teacher Association Yes Neighboring Counties Yes Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Yes Pierce County Fire Chiefs Association No Pierce County Neighborhood Emergency Teams (PCNET) No Pierce County Police Chiefs Association Yes Pierce County Safe Kids Coalition Yes Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Yes Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Yes Puget Sound Energy Yes Puget Sound Regional Council Yes Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Yes Service Organizations Yes Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Yes Tribes Yes
Administrative Capability
Some of the capabilities identified are not provided by the City of Bonney Lake. However, Bonney Lake is covered by some special purpose or school districts that provide services of benefit to the community. For example, East Pierce Fire & Rescue provides several of the capabilities typically associated with municipal fire departments. School districts also provide some of the social capabilities that may be provided in other municipalities, such as, Families First Coalition. In the tables of capabilities, where districts provide the services which might be typically found in a municipality like Bonney Lake, the districts have been specifically identified.
PAGE 3-5 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 77 Technical Capability
Technical Tools (Plans and Other) Yes or No
Jurisdiction Capabilities After Action Reports of Any Incident Yes Capital Improvement Plan Yes Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Comprehensive Plan Yes Continuity of Governmental and Continuity of Operations Plan (COG and COOP) Yes Critical Facilities Plan Yes Drainage Master Plan Yes Economic Development Plan Yes Emergency Evacuation Plan Yes Emergency Response Plan Yes Generator Placement Plan Yes Habitat Plan Yes Hazardous Materials Response Plan Yes Lahar Evacuation Plan No Pandemic Flu Plan Yes Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes Sewer/Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Yes Storm Water Comprehensive Plan Yes Water Comprehensive Plan Yes
Regional Capabilities Local and Regional Emergency Exercises – All Types Yes
PAGE 3-6 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 78
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Tools (Taxes, Bonds, Fees, and Funds) Yes or No
Jurisdiction Capabilities TAXES: Authority to Levy Taxes Yes
BONDS: Authority to Issue Bonds Yes
FEES: Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes Impact Fees for Homebuyers/Developers for New Developments/Homes Yes Local Improvement District (LID) Yes
FUNDS: Capital Improvement Project Funds Yes Enterprise Funds Yes General Government Fund (Departments) Yes Internal Service Funds Yes Special Revenue Funds Yes Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas No
Regional Capabilities Pierce County Land Conservancy Yes Cascade Land Conservancy Yes
PAGE 3-7 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 79 Specific Capability for Bonney Lake
Jurisdiction Specific Capabilities
Legal & Regulatory Bonney Lake Municipal Code; City Prosecuting Attorney; Contracted City Attorney Administrative & Technical Emergency Management Exercises and Drills
Fiscal
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Capability
NFIP Status The City entered the NFIP on April 26, 1983. The City is in good standing in the NFIP as certified by Washington State Department of Ecology. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) was completed in June of 2006.
PAGE 3-8 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 80 Section 4
Risk Assessment Requirements
Identifying Hazards--- Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. • Does the new or updated plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? Profiling Hazards---Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. • Does the risk assessment identify (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard being addressed in the new or updated plan? • Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? • Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? • Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Assessing Vulnerability: Overview---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. • Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? • Does the new or updated plan address the impacts of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment] must also address the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. • Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss properties located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas…
• Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? • Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
81
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate…
• Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses for vulnerable structures? • Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
• Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and development trends?
82 SECTION 4
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE RISK ASSESSMENT SECTION
Table of Contents
RISK ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3 SECTION OVERVIEW ...... 4 VULNERABILITY AND HAZARD IMPACT ANALYSIS ...... 5
GEOLOGICAL ...... 5 METEOROLOGICAL ...... 6 TECHNOLOGICAL ...... 7 CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT ...... 8 VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ...... 29 REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS/SEVERE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS ...... 32 ENDNOTES ...... 36
83 Section Overview The Risk Assessment portrays the threats of natural hazards, the vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction to the hazards, and the consequences of hazards impacting communities. Each hazard is addressed as a threat and is identified and profiled in the Hazard Identification. The vulnerabilities to and consequences of a given hazard are addressed in the Vulnerability Analysis. Vulnerability is analyzed in terms of exposure of both population and infrastructure to each hazard. Consequences are identified as anticipated, predicted, or documented impacts caused by a given hazard when considering the vulnerability analysis and the characteristics of the hazard as outlined in its identification.
RISK
Threat Consequence Vulnerability
The WA Region 5 Hazard Identification was used for this plan. Each jurisdiction’s Vulnerability and Consequence Analysis is based on the Region 5 Hazard Identification. The Region 5 Hazard Identification can be found in the Base Plan. Each hazard is identified in subsections. The subsections are grouped by hazard-type (i.e., geological, meteorological, and technological hazards) and then alphabetically within each type. A summary table of the WA Region 5 Hazard Identification is included in this section as Table 4-1a and Table 4-1b.
The Vulnerability Analysis is displayed in six tables:
o Table 4-2 General Exposure o Table 4-3 Population Exposure o Table 4-4 General Infrastructure Exposure o Table 4-5a Consequence Analysis Chart – Geological o Table 4-5b Consequence Analysis Chart – Meteorological o Table 4-5c Consequence Analysis Chart – Technological
Each jurisdiction has its own Vulnerability Analysis, and it is included in this section.
The Consequence Identification is organized by Threat. Each threat page summarizes the hazard, graphically illustrates exposures from the Vulnerability Analysis, and lists corresponding Consequences. Each jurisdiction has its own Consequence Identification and it is included in this section: avalanche, earthquake, landslide, tsunami, volcanic, drought, flood, severe weather, and wildland/urban interface fire.
84
Specific information and analysis of a jurisdiction’s owned (public) infrastructure is addressed in the Infrastructure Section of its Plan.
Vulnerability and Hazard Impact Analysis Based on the WA Region 5 Hazard Identification, the City of Bonney Lake has analyzed hazards impacting its jurisdiction and grouped them into Geological, Meteorological and Technological hazards to assess vulnerability and impact within its geographical boundaries. A more detailed discussion than follows can be found in the Pierce County Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 2019. A survey of participants in the City’s 2019 Bonney Lake Days festival, identified the following hazards as being of most concern to the public, i.e., earthquake, technological disaster, volcano and severe winter storm. The discussion that follows represents the City’s position related to these and other potential risks. Geological: • Earthquake • Landslide • Volcanic
Meteorological: • Drought • Flood • Severe Weather • WUI
Technological: • Civil Disturbance • Dam Failure • Energy Emergency • Epidemic • Hazardous Materials • Pipelines • Terrorism / Active Threat • Transportation Accident
Geological
Earthquake
Using data from the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, the City of Bonney Lake has experienced approximately 75 earthquakes of a maximum magnitude of 2.2 since 1974. The simple mathematical average means the City has experienced less than one such event per year. However, in 2017, the City experienced 17 earthquakes in the magnitude range of 0.7 to 2.0. While local earthquake activity has been historically minor, it is more likely that Bonney Lake will be impacted by earthquakes occurring along the major Seattle and Tacoma Faults or by
85 subduction zone earthquakes associated with plate margins of the Pacific, North American and Juan de Fuca plates (Cascadia Subduction Zone). The Seattle and Tacoma Faults have the potential to generate earthquakes in the 7.0 range, while the Cascadia Subduction Zone has the potential to generate earthquakes in excess of 9.0. Because Bonney Lake is a relatively new community, incorporated in 1949, it is likely the City will suffer only minor impacts associated with Seattle or Tacoma Fault earthquakes. It is probable the larger subduction zone earthquakes will have the greatest impact on Bonney Lake. It should be noted that although the City is vulnerable to shaking, only limited portions of the City are subject to potential liquefaction. The City’s resources and ability to respond will likely be exceeded in a large magnitude subduction zone earthquake.
Landslide
The City of Bonney Lake is located on the plateau area of northeastern Pierce County. Many of its critical slopes are undeveloped, thus resulting in only minor disruptions due to failing slopes. Notable exceptions include residential areas in Sky Island and Panorama West, as well as the State Route 410 corridor along Elhi Hill. There are several smaller subdivisions located in hilly areas across the City that may be susceptible to slope failure in large magnitude seismic events. Closure of the State Route would create an impact to commerce; however, alternate routes could be used to relieve the transportation emergency.
Volcanic
Approximately 5,600 years ago, the Osceola Mudflow covered the Bonney Lake area. Approximately 500 years ago, the Electron Mudflow followed the White and Puyallup River valleys. It is this pathway for lahar’s for which Pierce County and its cities are currently preparing. It is anticipated that such a lahar would not physically impact the City of Bonney Lake, but the City would be the recipient of refugees fleeing the potential devastation in the valleys below. The Pierce County Department of Emergency Management has a “Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan (2008)” which provides much of the science and expected response to a lahar. It fails to mention the likelihood that Bonney Lake will receive significant refugees seeking safety from lahars. Another likely impact of a volcanic event associated with Mount Rainier is tephra or ash fall. While the prevailing wind direction is from the West, Bonney Lake does experience contrary winds that could deposit ash from a volcanic eruption. The City is beginning to develop plans to deal with the impacts of tephra/ash fall on the community.
Meteorological
Drought
The City of Bonney Lake along with the entire region is subject to drought. Drought is likely to develop over time and is a gradually developing emergency that may take from months to years to affect the City. Initially lack of water may not even be noticed by the citizens as the City draws upon its provider agreements. However as drought conditions continue, its impacts will
86 be noticed by a continually expanding portion of the community until it is felt by all. Some of the impacts will depend on the jurisdiction. For example, industry that depends on a large continuous water supply, or irrigation for agriculture may have additional economic impacts that bedroom communities do not experience. The City of Bonney Lake depends on ground wells and springs for a large portion of its water and interties to Tacoma Water to provide for shortfalls. In a recent drawdown of the Lake Tapps reservoir, some of the City’s wells experienced a drop-in water levels.
Flood
With its location on a plateau, the City of Bonney Lake is not subject to widespread flooding. However, with sustained rainfall, minor flooding can occur as storm water ponds, small streams and lakes fill and exceed their capacity to handle the accumulation. In 2016, an area identified as the Easthill, an area in the City and including adjacent property in unincorporated Pierce County, experienced localized flooding closing some roads and endangering several homes over a period of several weeks. The City of Bonney Lake undertook the emergency pumping of flood waters into Lake Tapps to lower the water levels to restore access to some of the roadways and the homes located along the roadways. Another potential source of flooding would be from dam failures at the dikes of Lake Tapps. This will be further discussed under technological hazards.
Severe Weather
One of the most frequently occurring hazards the City of Bonney Lake faces is from severe winter weather. It is typical for the City of Bonney Lake to experience at least one severe winter weather event each year. These events may include snow, ice, high winds, and extremely low temperatures. Impacts include road closures, loss of electricity, loss of trees and damage to homes from falling trees and extreme living conditions with low temperatures and cold homes. Commerce is also affected by the loss of electricity. The homeless may experience extreme impacts during such events.
WUI
Wildland Urban Interface: Although the City of Bonney Lake does not have large areas of forested or grasslands that could develop into a wildland/urban interface fire, a 2019 study of California fires, “High wildfire damage in interface communities in California*1,” identifies major loss in buildings located in the interface where the homes, vehicles, woodpiles, etc. act as fuel to continue the destruction started in the wildland. The City of Bonney Lake has small forested tracts on its critical slopes that could be the starting point for interface fires of limited scope affecting some citizens.
Technological
Civil Disturbance
Civil disturbance of a magnitude sufficient to disrupt the Bonney Lake municipal government operations or economy has not yet occurred in its history and is unlikely to occur in the near
87 future. In general, external forces much larger than those at work within the City will be required to escalate civil unrest to some form of civil disturbance. However, the City may anticipate increasing disturbance in the form of isolated vandalism, picketing, etc. as an expression of social unrest.
Dam Failure
The City of Bonney Lake is vulnerable to failure of one Lake Tapps levy in the Printz Basin. Failure of this levy may cause serious flooding within the City of Bonney Lake along the Angeline Road area of Fennel Creek.
Energy Emergency
Bonney Lake has experienced city-wide power failures over multiple days. There is both an economic impact and a quality of life issue for residents in such an event. It is uncommon in this age for a business to be able to run on a cash-only basis during a power failure. Additionally, freezers and coolers are no longer operational and fresh food commodities for the public become unavailable. Unprepared residents may also suffer from the lack of food. An energy emergency may lead to a cascade of other technological emergencies, such as, civil disturbance and epidemics.
Epidemic/Pandemic
The City of Bonney Lake has been subject, along with the greater Pierce County population, to epidemics and pandemics. The difference between the two is the geographical extent of the disease. A recent example of epidemic is the outbreak of measles in the population. An outbreak of Swine Flu in 2009-2010 is an example of a larger-scale pandemic. Depending on the severity of the disease and the ease of transmittal, the City populace may be impacted. The Tacoma Pierce County Health Department has emergency plans for distribution of treatment drugs to locations within the County. Public Health practitioners predict that a serious pandemic is inevitable as the engineering of viruses continue for research.
Hazardous Materials
Hazmat events are largely limited to the State Route 410 corridor through the City of Bonney Lake. This corridor is largely occupied with commercial/business uses. Traffic interruption due to a temporary closure of the State Route would be mitigated with the use of parallel surface streets and other points of egress and ingress into or out of the City. It is anticipated that any hazmat event would be of limited duration and limited impact to residential neighborhoods in the City. Some commercial disruption would be of limited duration.
Changes in Development Over the past 5 years Bonney Lake has experienced steady growth in residential and commercial development. The commercial and multifamily growth has been along State Route 410 East to include a new shopping center and a 408-unit apartment complex. A number of plats that were approved prior to the Great Recession were finalized and homes are being constructed on these
88 lots. These subdivisions include the final two phases of Sky Island, which are constructed along the slopes on the south side of State Route 410 East. Since 2014, the City has annexed approximately 171 acres of land into the City. Most of the annexed land is school district property or single-family parcels. The City of Bonney Lake adopted FEMA’s most current flood maps in 2017. The City also completed a comprehensive update of the City’s shoreline regulations in 2015 and the critical areas regulations in 2019. As development continues and more people are moving into the City of Bonney Lake, the risk of identified hazards impacting the population increases. The City of Bonney Lake continues to monitor the infrastructure, incorporate elements of the mitigation plan into existing plans, ordinances and programs to dictate land uses and educate the public regarding hazards through community outreach. The City is also currently working on a resiliency section to the City’s Environmental Stewardship Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Bonney Lake 2035, in 2020.
89 Table 4-1a WA Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary – Geological DECLARATION # PROBABILITY/ THREAT MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES DATE/PLACE RECURRENCE AVALANCHE Not Applicable Yearly in the mountainous areas of the Slab Avalanche County including Mt. Rainier National Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche Park and the Cascades. Pierce County Avalanches of Record EARTHQUAKE N/A--7/22/2001 Nisqually Delta Magnitude 4.3 Types of Earthquakes N/A--6/10/2001 Satsop Magnitude 5.0—Intraplate Earthquake Major Faults in the Puget Sound Basin DR-1361-WA--2/2001 Nisqually Magnitude 6.8—Intraplate Earthquake Seattle and Tacoma Fault Segments N/A--7/2/1999 Satsop Magnitude 5.8—Intraplate Earthquake Pierce County Seismic Hazard DR-196-WA--4/29/1965 Maury Island, South Magnitude 6.5—Intraplate Earthquake Major Pacific Northwest Earthquakes Puget Sound Magnitude 7.0—Intraplate Earthquake Notable Earthquakes Felt in Pierce County N/A--4/13/1949 South Puget Sound Magnitude 6.3 Salmon Beach, Tacoma Washington following Feb 2001 Earthquake N/A--2/14/1946 Maury Island 40 years or less occurrence Liquefaction Niigata Japan-1964 Historical Record—About every 23 years Lateral Spreading – March 2001 for intraplate earthquakes LANDSLIDE DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 Slides with minor impact (damage to 5 or Northeast Tacoma Landslide January 2007 DR-852-WA--1/1990 less developed properties or $1,000,000 or Pierce County Landslide and Soil Erosion Hazard DR-545-WA--12/1977 less damage) 10 years or less. Slides with Pierce County Shoreline Slope Stability Areas significant impact (damage to 6 or more Notable Landslides in Pierce County developed properties or $1,000,000 or Ski Park Road – Landslide January 2003 greater damage) 100 years or less. SR-165 Bridge Along Carbon River – Landslide February 1996 Aldercrest Drive - Landslide TSUNAMI N/A--1894 Puyallup River Delta Due to the limited historic record, until Hawaii 1957 – Residents Explore Ocean Floor Before Tsunami N/A--1943 Puyallup River Delta (did not induce further research can provide a better Hawaii 1949 – Wave Overtakes a Seawall tsunami) estimate a recurrence rate of 100 years Puget Sound Fault Zone Locations, Vertical Deformation and Peak Ground N/A--1949 Tacoma Narrows plus or minus will be used. Acceleration Seattle and Tacoma Faults Geological Tsunami Inundation and Current Based on Earthquake Scenario Puget Sound Landslide Areas and Corresponding Tsunamis Puget Sound River Deltas, Tsunami Evidence and Peak Ground Acceleration Salmon Beach, Pierce County 1949 – Tsunamigenic Subaerial Landslide Puyallup River Delta – Submarine Landslides Puyallup River Delta – Submarine Landslides and Scarp Damage in Tacoma from 1894 Tsunami
VOLCANIC DR-623-WA--5/1980 The recurrence rate for either a major lahar Volcano Hazards (Case I or Case II) or a major tephra Debris Flow at Tahoma Creek – July 1988 eruption is 500 to 1000 years. The Douglas Fir Stump – Electron Lahar Deposit in Orting recurrence rate for either a major lahar Landslide from Little Tahoma Peak Covering Emmons Glacier (Case I or Case II) or a major tephra Tephra Types and Sizes eruption is 500 to 1000 years. Lahars, Lava Flows and Pyroclastic Hazards of Mt. Rainier Estimated Lahar Travel Times for Lahars 107 to 108 Cubic Meters in Volume Ashfall Probability from Mt. Rainier Annual Probability of 10 Centimeters or more of Tephra Accumulation in the Pacific NW Cascade Eruptions Mt. Rainier Identified Tephra, last 10,000 years Pierce County River Valley Debris Flow History 90 Table 4-1b Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary – Meteorological and Technological FEMA DECLARATION # PROBABILITY/ HAZARD MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES DATE/PLACE RECURRENCE CLIMATE Not Applicable Not Applicable Global Temperature Change: 1850 to 2006 CHANGE Recent and Projected Temperatures for the Pacific Northwest Comparison of the South Cascade Glacier: 1928 to 2003 Lower Nisqually Glacier Retreat: 1912 to 2001 DROUGHT Many dry seasons but no declarations 50 years or less occurrence Sequence of Drought Impacts Palmer Drought Severity Index Pierce County Watersheds %Area of Basin in Drought Conditions Since 1895 %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: 1895-1995 %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: 1985-1995 Notable Droughts Affecting Pierce County Columbia River Basin USDA Climate Zones – Washington State FLOOD DR-WA 1817--01/2009 DR-852-WA--1/1990 5 years or less occurrence Pierce County Watersheds NA-11/2008 DR-784-WA--11/1986 Best Available Science--The frequency Pierce County Flood Hazard DR-1734-WA--12/2007 DR-545-WA--12/1977 of the repetitive loss claims indicates Pierce County Repetitive Loss Areas DR-1671-WA--11/2006 DR-492-WA--12/1975 there is approximately a 33 percent Clear Creek Basin DR-1499-WA--10/2003 DR-328-WA--2/1972 chance of flooding occurring each year. Repetitive Flood Loss Aerial Photo
DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/97 DR-185-WA--12/1964 Flood Hazard Declared Disasters DR-1100-WA--1-2/1996 Feb 8, 1996 Flooding – Del Rio Mobile Homes Along Puyallup DR-1079-WA--11-12/1995 River DR-896-WA--12/1990 Nov 2006 Flooding River Park Estates – Along Puyallup River DR-883-WA--11/1990 Nov 2006 Flooding State Route 410 – Along Puyallup River Nov 2006 Flooding Rainier Manor – Along Puyallup River
Meteorological SEVERE DR-4056-WA – 01/2012 DR-981-WA--1/1993 The recurrence rate for all types of Fujita Tornado Damage Scale WEATHER DR-1825- WA – 12/2008 – DR-137-WA--10/1962 severe storms is 5 years or less. Windstorm Tracks 01/2009 Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard – South Wind Event DR-1682-WA--12/2006 Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard – East Wind Event DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 Notable Severe Weather in Pierce County DR-1152-WA--11/19/1996 Snowstorm January 2004 Downtown Tacoma Satellite Image – Hanukkah Eve Windstorm Before/After Tornado Damage Greensburg KS May 2007 Public Works Responds 2005 Snowstorm Downed Power Pole February 2006 Windstorm County Road December 2006 Windstorm Tacoma Narrows Bridge – November 1940 Windstorm WUI FIRE Not Applicable Based on information from WA DNR Washington State Fire Hazard Map the probability of recurrence for WUI Pierce County Forest Canopy fire hazard to Pierce County is 5 years Industrial Fire Precaution Level Shutdown Zones or less. Carbon Copy Fire August 2006 Washington State DNR Wildland Fire Statistics: 1973-2007 DNR Wildland Response South Puget Sound Region: 2002-2007 Pierce County DNR Fires
91 92
Technological TRANSPORTATION ANCE DISTURB DAM FAILURE EMERGENCY A HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS TE MATERIALS ACCIDENT HAZARD EPIDEMIC B PIPELINE PIPELINE FAILURE ENERGY ENERGY ANDONED ANDONED RRORISM MINES CIVIL CIVIL
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable DECLARATION # # DECLARATION DATE/PLACE FEMA FEMA
entering the abandoned mines in east Pierce that they have had very few incidents of citizens The Pierce County Sheriff’s Depar Based on Information from Recurrence Rate Major Incidents rare Minor Incidents occur daily Major Minor PC Incident 10 years recurr Pandemics Re Recurrence Rate incident, via natural hazards (storms, ice) Power Outage is the most frequent energy recurrence years 50+ No occurrences in Pierce County Tacoma to Joint Base Lewis McChord Movement of military supplies from Port of unrest is a rare occurrence. histor the at Looking 2009/2010 occ Isolated issues of minor subsidence Small Incidents 1 week recurrence Large Incidents 5 year recurrence • • • • • currence currence u incident May 1 May incident Northwest Pipeline Corporation natural gas 2004 13, October of spill oil Passage Dalco Island ( January 200 2007 2007 Chlorine Spill Port of Tacoma 2009 Recurrence Rate rred, typically following flood events in
Incident Incident - 2010 “Swine Flu
PROBABILITY/ underground [water] cable) [water] underground RECURRENCE R ate ence – – 9 Loss of electricity to Anderson – – – – Recurrence 100 years
(storms) years 5 10 years 10 (major) years 50+ st –
Recurrence 1 Recurrence 2003, in Sumner ical record, major civil
– 20 20 years
WA DNR WA
-
year tment reports February February
have have
1 Co. Co. 2, 2,
D 12, 2007)(February Tacoma of Port the in Spill Chlorine all industries Anderson Island January 2009 Underwater power cable broke 1984 Collection: A Catalog, Index, and User’s Guide Schasse, Koler, Eberle, and Christie, Pie Ra HIRA 2009 County Pierce bombed, Clinic Medicine Family Westgate White Supremacy Group Hate Crimes, 19 African Tacoma’s Model Cities and Human Rights Offices burned 1972 HIRA 2009 County Pierce HIRA 2009 County Pierce Map Illegal metha HM Table 2009 County Pierce E Coli, January 1993, September 1998 Measles, State of WA, 1990 Tacoma Pierce County HealthPlan DistricFlu Pan t Pie Tacoma HIRA 2009 County Pierce D Table HIRA D Table Hilltop Riots Tacoma 1 HIRA 2009 County Pierce Civ County Pierce HIRA 2009 County Pierce alco Passage oil spill (October 13, 2004) 13, (October spill oil Passage alco il: Frei il: rce County County rce r ce County 2009 HIRA 2009 County ce
P
Freight Train Freight - 1 Pierce County Pipelines - - American ch Power Outage 1929, USS Lexington provide 2 Dam Fa Dam 2 2009 County Pierce Risk, Significant or High a Pose that Dams PC 1 gh - 1 Reported Releases (in lbs.)of all chemicals, for Pierce Co. in 2008, 1996 Steilacoom Derailment, t
mphetamine sites (A high of 258 sites in 2 in sites 258 of high (A sites mphetamine MAPS –
Mine Hazard Areas MapBased on il Distur ilures in ilures
Derailment, Chambers Bay, 2011 Bay, Chambers Derailment, HIRA urch burned 1993 969, 1991 1991 969, , FIGURES
b
WA State WA ance Map ance
The Washington State Coal Mine Map
98
AND T AND 2011
, Open Fi Open ,
WA DNR Information Information DNR WA
power 001 ABLES le Report le
- 56 sites in 2009 in sites 56
94 - 7, June June 7,
City of Bonney Lake Hazard Maps and Overview of Data Source Descriptions
Liquefaction Potential2 Summary: This is a subset of the original data clipped to Pierce County. The liquefaction susceptibility map details the risk potential throughout the City of Bonney Lake in a color gradient map. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources received grant funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) following the Nisqually earthquake of February 2001 (FEMA-1361-DRWA). This grant required the Division of Geology and Earth Resources to develop statewide liquefaction susceptibility and NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) site class maps. Regional and local earthquake hazard maps such as these support hazard mitigation, emergency planning and response, planning of local zoning ordinances, and building code enforcement. The primary reason for producing this series of earthquake hazard maps is to support revisions to the State Hazard Mitigation Plan required in the implementation of final rules 44CFR201.4 and 44CFR201.6. These Federal code regulations require both state and local agencies to describe the location and extent of earthquake hazards that affect their jurisdictions. Additionally, these maps will serve a great variety of end-users that are crucial partners in earthquake hazard mitigation. Description These data contain polygons that provide information regarding the relative liquefaction potential for Pierce County, Washington. This feature class is part of a geodatabase that contains statewide ground response data for Washington State. Liquefaction is a natural phenomenon in which saturated, sandy soils lose their strength and behave as liquid. Liquefaction is a caused by severe ground shaking during earthquake events. Polygons are classified as having 'very low' to 'high' relative liquefaction susceptibility. Areas underlain by bedrock or peat are mapped separately as these earth materials are not liquefiable, although peat deposits may be subject to permanent ground deformation caused by earthquake shaking and require site-specific analysis under the International Building Code. Water and ice are also separately designated. Use limitations The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. This product is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the authors of this product will not be liable to the user of this product for any activity involving the product with respect to the following: (a) lost profits, lost savings, or any other consequential damages; (b) the fitness of the product for a particular purpose; or (c) use of the product or results obtained from use of the product. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of DGER, no warranty, expressed or
93 implied, is made by DGER regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. Appropriate use of these map data is the responsibility of each user. - Users must acknowledge the originators when using the data set as a source. - Data should not be used beyond the limits of the source scale. - The data set is not a survey document and should not be utilized as such. This map is meant only as a general guide to delineate areas prone to liquefaction. It is not a substitute for site-specific investigation to assess the potential for liquefaction for any development project. Because the data used in the liquefaction susceptibility assessment have been subdivided based on regional geologic mapping, this map cannot be used to determine the presence or absence of liquefiable soils beneath any specific locality. This determination requires a site-specific geotechnical investigation performed by a qualified practitioner.
Deep Landslide Susceptibility3 Summary: These data sets were produced to provide attribute and spatial information on deep-seated landslide susceptibility in Pierce County, by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER). The goal of this data is to estimate the extent of deep-seated landslide susceptible areas. This data is only an estimate of deep-seated landslide susceptible areas, deep-seated landslides can occur outside of the bounds of these polygons. This data is nonregulatory and is intended for informational purposes. It may not be suitable for legal, engineering, forestry, or surveying purposes; but it is intended to assist planners, homeowners, regulators, and others by identifying areas to seek further geologic investigation in before developing, or areas to avoid. Users of this information should consider their intended application, and review or consult the accompanying documentation, to determine the usability of the data for themselves. Description: This is a polygon feature class intended to estimate areas susceptible to deep-seated landslides. To create this susceptibility dataset a landslide inventory was first created by using the methods described in the report accompanying these data. The constructed landslide inventory was then used, along with other necessary datasets, to create this deep-seated landslide susceptibility dataset by following protocol from Special Paper 48 (Burns and Mickelson, 2016). This feature class is part of a larger landslide susceptibility dataset for Pierce County, Washington. Use Limitations: The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. This product is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the authors of this product will not be liable to the user of this product for any activity involving the product with respect to the following: (a) lost profits, lost savings, or any other consequential damages; (b) the fitness of the product for a particular purpose; or (c) use of the product or results obtained from use of the product. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of DGER, no warranty, expressed or
94 implied, is made by DGER regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty.
Landslide - Shallow4 Summary: These data sets were produced to provide attribute and spatial information on shallow landslide susceptibility in Pierce County, by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER). The goal of this data is to estimate the extent of shallow landslide susceptible areas. This data is only an estimate of shallow landslide susceptible areas, shallow landslides can occur outside of the bounds of these polygons. This data is non-regulatory and is intended for informational purposes. It may not be suitable for legal, engineering, forestry, or surveying purposes; but it is intended to assist planners, homeowners, regulators, and others by identifying areas to seek further geologic investigation in before developing, or areas to avoid. Users of this information should consider their intended application, and review or consult the accompanying documentation, to determine the usability of the data for themselves. Description: This is a polygon feature class intended to estimate areas susceptible to shallow landslides. To create this susceptibility dataset, the data listed in Special Paper 45 (Burns and others, 2012) as necessary data was obtained, and the FOS portion of that protocol was followed. This feature class is part of a larger landslide susceptibility dataset for Pierce County, Washington. Use Limitations: The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. This product is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the authors of this product will not be liable to the user of this product for any activity involving the product with respect to the following: (a) lost profits, lost savings, or any other consequential damages; (b) the fitness of the product for a particular purpose; or (c) use of the product or results obtained from use of the product. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of DGER, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by DGER regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty.
Volcanic – Lahar5 Summary This volcanic hazard zone is intended for use by public and private agencies to view, overlay with other Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets, and make maps of volcanic hazards from potential future eruptions of Mount Rainier, Washington. It is critical to understand the nature of the boundaries of the volcanic hazard zones. Although arcs serve as boundaries of hazard zones, the degree of hazard does not change abruptly at these boundaries. Rather, a volcanic hazard decreases gradually with increased distance from the volcano and above the
95 valley floor. These volcanic hazards also span a range of size and recurrence. The hazard zones delineated in this data set portray volcanic events believed most likely from future activity at Mount Rainier, Washington. Areas outside the hazard zones, especially those having low relief, should not be regarded as hazard-free. Too many uncertainties exist in source, size, and mobility of future events to locate boundaries of zero-hazard zones with confidence. Description This is a combined dataset of a Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3 scenario into one dataset and does not include a pyroclastic dataset. Please contact Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources to obtain these datasets or more information. For the planning purposes and identification of lahar risk within jurisdictions the Case 1 scenario dataset is used identifying the worst-case scenario potentially possible although again, areas outside the hazard zones, especially those having low relief, should not be regarded as hazard-free. This dataset contains inundation zones for Case 1 lahars which are defined as areas that could be affected by cohesive lahars that originate as enormous avalanches of weak, chemically altered rock from the volcano. Case I lahars can occur with or without eruptive activity. The average time interval between Case I lahars on Mount Rainier is about 500 to 1000 years.
Regulated Floodplain6 Summary: The flood hazard map delineates the flood hazard risk of the City of Bonney Lake. This map uses the new FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for Pierce County, Washington and Incorporated Areas became effective on March 7, 2017. These mapping products replace the FIS & FIRM issued to Unincorporated Pierce County in 1987 and the other incorporated communities between 1980 and 1985. The new DFIRM is a seamless countywide product adopted by every community participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The intended purposes of this data are to support the National Flood Insurance Program so that flood insurance policies can be written for any qualifying structure in the community. In areas identified as Special Flood Hazard Areas -SFHA a structure with a federally backed loan is required to purchase flood insurance. SFHA are designated as Zones beginning with the letter A or V (e.g. AE, AH and VE). Areas of moderate risk or areas suspected to be at risk of flooding but where no detailed flood study has been completed are shown as Zone X (Shaded). It is also to inform development in or near flood hazard areas so that new construction and redevelopment meets the purposes of the flood hazards areas described in PCC Title 18E.70. Description: The DFIRM is a composite of several flood studies, some dating back to the 1970s and as recent as 2016 that represent the best available date at the production deadline. The exception to this is the "secluded areas" that are near significant levees that effect the floodplain do not meet the federal standard (44 Code of Federal Regulations 65.10) to show an area protected by the levee. The secluded areas, in the lower Puyallup River and the Carbon River and Puyallup River near the City of Orting, continue to show the understanding of risk prior to the establishment of 44CFR65.10 as shown on the first FIRM. There are more recent hydraulic studies that show a better understanding of flood risk and Unincorporated Pierce County regulates to this better data
96 which has been added to the Regulated Floodplain 2017 feature class. In areas where the regulated flood hazard varies from the DFIRM there are attributions indicating a different "insurance zone" or "insurance BFE". The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Database depicts flood risk information and supporting data used to develop the risk data. The primary risk classifications used are the 1- percent-annual-chance flood event, the 0.2-percent-annual- chance flood event, and areas of minimal flood risk. The DFIRM Database is derived from Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), previously published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and flood hazard analyses performed in support of the FISs and FIRMs, and new mapping data, where available. The FISs and FIRMs are published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FIRM is the basis for floodplain management, mitigation, and insurance activities for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Insurance applications include enforcement of the mandatory purchase requirement of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, which "... requires the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who are being assisted by Federal programs or by Federally supervised, regulated or insured agencies or institutions in the acquisition or improvement of land facilities located or to be located in identified areas having special flood hazards, " Section 2 (b) (4) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. In addition to the identification of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the risk zones shown on the FIRMs are the basis for the establishment of premium rates for flood coverage offered through the NFIP. The DFIRM Database presents the flood risk information depicted on the FIRM in a digital format suitable for use in electronic mapping applications. The DFIRM database is a subset of the Digital FIS database that serves to archive the information collected during the FIS. Updates: The October 2019 update to the Regulated Floodplain 2017shows the changed flood hazard areas modified by FEMA in two Letter of Map Revisions -LOMR. Some coastal areas of Puget Sound were modified by LOMR 19-10-0588P that became effective 4/22/2019. A new flood study of Deer Creek within the City of Puyallup modified the flood hazard areas with LOMR 18-10-0841P that became effective 4/4/2019.
Hazardous Material The Hazardous Material map has outlined the main arterial routes, railroad lines, airports, marine ferry routes and Tier ll sites for which the GIS spatial analysis was taken where there is the potential risk for hazardous materials to be located at any given time. A 2,500-foot buffer was placed around these identified areas, in accordance with the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) for potential contaminated zones. This zone does not go into detail of identifying 3 control zones during a hazmat incident. It is intended for general planning purposes only. If an actual incident were to occur instructions would be given by the Incident Commander on site and buffer zones would be determined by the type of hazardous material released. To reduce clutter and overlapping of data the 2,500-buffer zone was not included on the map, but data analysis was analyzed from it within those perimeters. 2017 Tier II Sites
97 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCPA) of 1986 was created to help communities plan for chemical emergencies. It also requires industry to report on the storage, use and releases of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments. EPCRA requires state and local governments, and Indian tribes to use this information to prepare for and protect their communities from potentials risks. In 2017 Pierce County Emergency Management secured a project to identify reported 2017 Tier ll Sites within Pierce County. These sites were mapped based on their geographical location of identified hazardous substances reported.
Transportation Accidents / Incidents The Transportation Accident map, like the Hazardous Material Map has also outlined the main arterial routes, railroad lines, airports, marine ferry routes for which the GIS spatial analysis was taken where there is the potential risk for transportation accidents/incidents to occur at any given time. A 2,500-foot buffer was placed around these identified areas also for potential hazard risks related to the accident/incident. It is intended for general planning purposes only. If an actual accident/incident were to occur instructions would be given by the Incident Commander on site and traffic control zones, barriers or alternate routes would be determined by the type of accident/incident. To reduce clutter and overlapping of data the 2,500-buffer zone was not included on the map, but data analysis was analyzed from it within those perimeters.
Drought, Severe Weather, Civil Disturbance, Energy Emergency, Epidemic, and Terrorism Due to the nature of these potential natural and man-made hazards occurring anywhere within Pierce County or within a local jurisdiction, their total boundary figures are used when calculating the risk factors. These numbers will match their Base number’s and will show the percent risk at 100% on the Vulnerability Analysis Tables for General Exposure, Population Exposure and General Infrastructure Exposure. Hazard maps are not created for each of these hazards and for reference the Base map is in the Profile Section 2 of this Mitigation Plan.
Vulnerability Analysis Data A vulnerability analysis was conducted on each hazard map to determine the general exposure, population exposure, and general infrastructure exposure risk. The Pierce County parcel geodatabase is derived from the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer’s Office and they edit and maintain their “parcel” geodatabases daily. The GIS polygon data includes condominium parcel information but does not include mobile home data. A “Total Base” value is determined for each jurisdiction based on their boundaries and then an analysis is performed to determine the risk percent of each hazard within those boundaries. The tax parcel geodatabase provides information for the square miles, parcels, land value, improved value and total assessed values for the analysis and is identified in Tables 4-3 and 4-5. The original 2010 census data was downloaded by Pierce County GIS via ftp from US Census website and was available on October 14, 2011. All population base and hazard exposure data
98 are derived from this dataset in determining the population exposure. At the current time with the mitigation plan updates this is the best available data that is county wide. As hazards do not have jurisdictional boundaries a dataset is required that is county wide for analysis purposes. It is acknowledged that this population data is 10 years old and outdated and will be replaced within the plan once the 2020 census data becomes available sometime in 2021. Profile Section 2 provides a heading “Demographic Analysis” for jurisdictions to identify their current populations as best described by them. The population density figures from Table 4-3 Vulnerability Analysis, Population Exposure calculate the total population density within each hazard area to identify the vulnerable population at risk. The population density is not calculated from the entire jurisdictional boundary.
99 Map 4-1 City of Bonney Lake – Flood Hazard Map
100 Map 4-2 City of Bonney Lake – Lahar Hazard Map
101 Map 4-3 City of Bonney Lake – Landslide-Deep Hazard Map
102 Map 4-4 City of Bonney Lake – Landslide-Shallow Hazard Map
103 Map 4-5 City of Bonney Lake – Seismic-Liquefaction Potential Hazard Map
104 Map 4-6 City of Bonney Lake – Dam Failure Hazard Map
105 Map 4-7 City of Bonney Lake – Hazardous Material Hazard Area Map
106 Map 4-8 City of Bonney Lake – Hazardous Material-Tier ll Sites Hazard Area Map
107 Map 4-9 City of Bonney Lake – Transportation Emergency Hazard Area Map 108 Vulnerability Analysis
Table 4-2 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure7 AREA (SQ MI) PARCELS THREAT8 Total % Base Total % Base BASE 6.60 100% 7,967 100%
Avalanche9 NA NA NA NA
Liquefaction10 .31 4.7% 96 1.2%
Landslide-Deep .28 4.2% 72 .9% ogical Landslide- 1.06 16.0% 982 12.3% Geol Shallow
Tsunami NA NA NA NA
Volcanic11 .34 5.1% 105 1.3%
Drought12 6.60 100% 7,967 100%
Flood 1.31 19.8% 506 6.4% og ical
Severe Weather 6.60 100% 7,967 100% Meteorol WUI Fire13 Insufficient GIS data to draw numbers from at this time or map susceptibility
Abandoned NA NA NA NA Mines14 Civil 6.60 100% 7,967 100% Disturbance15
Dam Failure16 .63 9.6% 213 2.67%
Energy 6.60 100% 7,967 100% Emergency17
Epidemic18 6.60 100% 7,967 100%
Hazardous Technological Technological 6.09 92.3% 7,188 90.2% Material19 Pipeline NA NA NA NA Hazard20
Terrorism21 6.60 100% 7,967 100%
Transportation 6.09 92.3% 7,188 90.2% Accidents22
109 Table 4-3 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure POPULATION SPECIAL POPULATIONS (OF TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION) THREAT2 Density 65+ yrs 20- yrs Total % Base (pop/sq mi) # % # % BASE 17,534 100% 2,657 1,132 6% 5,496 31% Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Liquefaction 514 3% 1,646 34 3% 174 3%
Landslide-Deep 1,216 6.9% 4,355 75 6.6% 418 7.6%
Landslide- 15,786 16% 14,963 1,038 91.7% 4,932 89.7% Geological Shallow
Tsunami NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Volcanic 394 2.2% 367 25 2.2% 126 2.3%
Drought 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31%
Flood 5,158 29.4% 3,945 322 28.8% 1,592 29.1% ogical
Severe Weather 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31% Meteorol WUI Fire Insufficient GIS data to draw numbers from at this time or map susceptibility
Abandoned NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mines Civil 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31% Disturbance
Dam Failure 3,370 19% 5,328 190 17% 1,137 21%
Energy 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31% Emergency
Epidemic 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31%
Hazardous Technological 12,624 92.3% 2,0731 827 73.1% 4,027 73.3% Material
Pipeline Hazard NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Terrorism 17,534 100% 2,732 1,1329 6% 5,496 31%
Transportation 12,624 92.3% 2,0731 827 73.1% 4,027 73.3% Accidents
110 Table 4-4 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure LAND VALUE IMPROVED VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE THREAT2 Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($)
BASE $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Liquefaction $20,462,700 1.4% $213,153 $31,109,200 1.5% $324,054 $51,571,900 1.5% $537,207
Landslide- $27,588,700 1.9%% $383,176 $43,830,500 2.2% $608,757 $71,419,200 2.1% $991,933 Deep Landslide- $151,168,600 10.5% 153,939 235,922,100 11.6% 240,246 387,090,700 11.2% 394,186 Geological Shallow Tsunami NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Volcanic $19,919,800 1.4% $132,799 $36,720,800 1.8% $244,805 $56,640,600 1.6% $539,434
$1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867
Drought
Flood $153,791,800 10.7% $303,936 $143,258,100 7.1% $283,119 $297,049,900 9.1% $587,055 logical
ro Severe $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Weather Meteo WUI Fire Insufficient GIS data to draw numbers from at this time or map susceptibility Abandoned NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mines Civil $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Disturbance Dam Failure $48,205,900 3.35% $226,319 $64,040,200 3.16% $300,658 $112,246,100 3.24% $112,246,100
Technological Energy $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Emergency 111 Epidemic $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Hazardous $1,237,016,900 86% $172,095 $1,837,288,800 90.7% $255,605 $3,074,305,700 88.7% $427,700 Material Pipeline NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hazard Terrorism $1,437,905,100 100% $180,483 $2,026,678,500 100% $254,384 $3,464,583,600 100% $434,867 Transportation $1,237,016,900 86% $172,095 $1,837,288,800 90.7% $255,605 $3,074,305,700 88.7% $427,700 Accidents
Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Flood Loss It is noted here that the City of Bonney Lake has no reported Repetitive Flood Loss properties, or Severe Repetitive Flood Loss properties at this time. Map 4-1, Flood Hazard, shows the City has very limited exposure to flooding. The City is a member in good standing of the NFIP, but currently there are no flood loss properties in the City limits to report. 112
Table 4-5a Consequence Analysis Chart – Geological23,24 THREAT2 CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO
Impact to the Public No Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Avalanche Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Yes Earthquake Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment Yes Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Landslide Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment Yes
Geological Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Impact to the Public No Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Tsunami Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Volcanic25 Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment Yes Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No
113 Table 4-5b Consequence Analysis Chart – Meteorological THREAT CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO
Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Drought Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment Yes Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes
Flood Impact to the Environment Yes Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes
Meteorological Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Severe Weather Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment Yes Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No WUI Fire Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No
Table 4-5c Consequence Analysis Chart – Technological26 THREAT CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO
Impact to the Public No Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Abandoned Mines Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No
Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Civil Disturbance Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Technological Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Dam Failure Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No
114 Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Energy Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Emergency Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Yes Epidemic Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Hazardous Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Materials Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public No Impact to the Responders No Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Pipeline Hazards Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Yes Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Terrorism Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Impact to the Public Yes Impact to the Responders Yes Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction No Transportation Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure No Accident Impact to the Environment No Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition No Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction No
115 Endnotes
1 Kramer, Heather Anu; Mockrin, Miranda H.; Alexandre, Patricia M.; Radeloff, Volker C. 2019. High wildfire damage in interface communities in California. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10 p. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18108 2 Liquefaction susceptibility is assigned based on criteria described in: Palmer, Stephen P.; Magsino, Sammantha L.; Bilderback, Eric L.; Poelstra, James L.; Folger, Derek S.; Niggemann, Rebecca A., 2007, Liquefaction susceptibility and site class maps of Washington State, by county: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2004-20, 78 plates, with 45 p. text. [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologyPublicationsLibrary/Pages/pub_ofr04-20.aspx] Data source information for the Liquefaction Susceptibility GIS Feature Class hazard layer is from the Metadata. For additional information contact the Washington Geological Survey, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Last updates to this data set on 2017-01-03. 3 Data source information for the Deep Landslide Susceptibility GIS Feature Class hazard layer is from the Metadata. For additional information contact the Washington Geological Survey. 4 Data source information for the Shallow Landslide Susceptibility GIS Feature Class hazard layer is from the Metadata. For additional information contact the Washington Geological Survey. 5 Lahar parcel and lahar study area were added by The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Lahar_case_1, Lahar_case_2, lahar_case_3, postlahar, and pyroclastic originated from USGS Open-File Report 2007-2005: Schilling, S. P.; Doelger, S.; Hoblitt, R. P.; Walder, J. S.; Driedger, C. L.; Scott, K. M.; Pringle, P. T.; Vallance, J. W., 2008, Digital data for volcano hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington; Revised 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1220, ArcInfo coverages and shapefiles. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1220/data.html]. This digital data accompanies Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington; Revised 1998 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-428): Hoblitt, R. P.; Walder, J. S.; Driedger, C. L.; Scott, K. M.; Pringle, P. T.; Vallance, J. W., 1998, Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington; Revised 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-428 [http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Rainier/Hazards/OFR98-428/OFR98-428.pdf 6 Data source information for the Regulated Floodplain 2017 GIS Feature Class hazard layer is from the Metadata. For additional information contact Dennis Dixon with Pierce County, Planning and Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. 7 Info obtained from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro (February 2020). 8 Currently the expanding body of empirical data on climate change supports its basic premise that the long-term average temperature of the earth's atmosphere has been increasing for decades (1850 to 2008). This trend is continuing and will create dramatic changes in the local environment of Pierce County. Today, questions revolve around the overall increase in local temperature and its long-term effects. Climate change today refers to variations in either regional or global environments over time. Time can refer to periods ranging in length from a few decades to other periods covering millions of years. A number of circumstances can cause climate change. Included herein are such diverse factors as solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, changing ocean current patterns, or even something as unusual as a methane release from the ocean floor. Over the past 150 years good temperature records have allowed comparisons to be made of global temperatures from year-to-year. This has shown an overall increase of approximately 0.7o C during this period. An increasing body of scientific evidence implies that the primary impetus driving climate change today is an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. 9 Jurisdiction is not vulnerable to this hazard; therefore it is marked NA or non-applicable. 10 It should be noted here that although all residents, all property and all infrastructure of the City of Bonney Lake are vulnerable to earthquake shaking, not all are subject to the affects of liquefaction and liquefiable soils which is what is represented here. 11 The threat of volcanic ashfall affects the entire Region 5 however some jurisdictions are specifically threatened by lahar flows directly from Mt. Rainier; an active volcano. 12 The entire jurisdiction is vulnerable to drought. There are three things that must be understood about the affect of drought on the jurisdiction: 1) Drought is a Region wide event. When it does affect Pierce County, it will affect every jurisdiction, 2) Drought will gradually develop over time. It is a gradually escalating emergency that may take from months to years to affect the jurisdiction. Initially lack of water may not even be noticed by the citizens.
116 However, as the drought continues, its effects will be noticed by a continually expanding portion of the community until it is felt by all, and 3) Jurisdictions will be affected differently at different times as a drought develops. This will vary depending on the needs of each local jurisdiction. Some examples are jurisdictions that have industry that requires a continuous supply of a large quantity of water; others have agriculture that requires water but may only require it at certain times of the year; and, some jurisdictions have a backup source of water while others do not. 13 According to the most recent information from the Department of Natural Resources, the City of Bonney Lake while undergoing development does not have large areas of forested land that could develop into a wildland/urban interface fire. Further study is needed to determine the extent of the area that could be affected. 14 The definition of Abandoned Mines comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Abandoned mines are any excavation under the surface of the earth, formerly used to extract metallic ores, coal, or other minerals, and that are no longer in production. 15 The definition of Civil Disturbance comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Civil Disturbance (unrest) is the result of groups or individuals within the population feeling, rightly or wrongly, that their needs or rights are not being met, either by the society at large, a segment thereof, or the current overriding political system. When this results in community disruption of a nature where intervention is required to maintain public safety it has become a civil disturbance. Additionally, the Region 5 Strategic Plan includes Operational Objectives 3 & 4: Intelligence Gathering, Indicators, Warnings, etc; and Intelligence and Information Sharing. 16 The definition of Dam Failure comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: A dam is any “barrier built across a watercourse for impounding water.16” Dam failures are catastrophic events “characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water. The vulnerability analysis was based on the potential dam failure from Mud Mountain Dam and Lake Tapps using Pierce County’s GIS data which originated from each of the dam’s emergency plans inundation maps. 17 The definition of an Energy Emergency comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Energy emergency refers to an out-of-the-ordinary disruption, or shortage, of an energy resource for a lengthy period. Additionally the Region 5 Strategic Plan addresses Energy Emergencies in its Operational Objective 32, Restoration of Lifelines which addresses the restoration of critical services such as oil, gas, natural gas, electric, etc. 18 The definition of epidemic comes from the TPCHD Flu Plan of 2005: A Pandemic is an epidemic occurring over a very wide area and usually affecting a large proportion of the population. Pandemics occur when a wholly new subtype of influenza A virus emerges. A “novel” virus can develop when a virulent flu strain that normally infects birds or animals infects a human who has influenza; the two viruses can exchange genetic material, creating a new, virulent flu virus that can be spread easily from person-to-person. Unlike the flu we see yearly, no one would be immune to this new flu virus, which would spread quickly, resulting in widespread epidemic disease – a pandemic. (DOH Plan & U.S. Dept. of HHS). 19 The definition of Hazardous Materials comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Hazardous materials are materials, which because of their chemical, physical or biological properties, pose a potential risk to life, health, the environment, or property when not properly contained. A hazardous material release then is the release of the material from its container into the local environment. A general rule of thumb for safety from exposure to hazardous material releases is 1000ft; the Emergency Response Guidebook 2019, established by the US Dept of Transportation, contains advice per specific materials. The vulnerability analysis was broken into two sub sections for a better understanding of the hazard using Pierce County’s GIS data with a 500-foot buffer on either side of the railroads and major roadways. 20 The definition of Pipeline Emergency comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: While there are many different substances transported through pipelines including sewage, water and even beer, pipelines, for the purpose of this chapter, are transportation arteries carrying liquid and gaseous fuels. They may be buried or above ground 21 The definition of Terrorism comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Terrorism has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as, “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” These acts can vary considerably in their scope, from cross burnings and the spray painting of hate messages to the destruction of civilian targets. In some cases, violence in the schools has also been labeled as a form of terrorism. 22 The definition of Transportation Accident comes from the 2020 Pierce County HIRA: Transportation accidents as used in this assessment include accidents involving a method of transportation on the road, rail, air, and maritime systems within the confines of Pierce County. The vulnerability analysis was broken into three sub sections for a
117 better understanding of the hazard using Pierce County’s GIS data; Commencement Bay to include inland rivers and streams, railroads, and roads. A 200-foot buffer was applied to all the shorelines and a 500-foot buffer on either side of the railroads and roadways. 23 In the Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure, both Tables 4-5a and 4-5b, look at the impact to all property, facilities and infrastructure existing in the jurisdiction, not just to that owned by the jurisdiction. 24 The consideration for each of these hazards, in both Tables 4-5a and 4-5b, as to whether an individual hazard’s consequences exist or not, is based on a possible worst-case scenario. It must also be understood that a “yes” means that there is a good possibility that the consequence it refers to could happen as a result of the hazard, not that it will. Conversely “No” means that it is highly unlikely that consequence will have a major impact, not that there will be no impact at all. 25 While the major volcanic hazard from Mt. Rainier is from a lahar descending the main river valleys surrounding the mountain, it is not the only problem. Most jurisdictions could receive tephra in greater or lesser amounts, sometimes with damaging results. Consequence analyses in this section consider the possibility of tephra deposition in addition to a lahar. 26 The Technological Consequences are added herein to acknowledge the role of human-caused hazards in the health and safety of unincorporated Pierce County. The consequences noted are under the same criteria as natural hazards given their impacts to the departmental assets.
118 Section 5 Mitigation Strategy Requirements
Mitigation Strategy---Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals---Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long- term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. • Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions---Requirement §201.6(c)(3) (ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance-- -Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. • Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? • Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure? • Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure? • Does the new or updated plan describe the jurisdiction(s) participation in the NFIP? • Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze and prioritize actions related to continued compliance with the NFIP? Implementation of Mitigation Actions---Requirement: §201.6(c)(3) (iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. • Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?) • Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered, including the responsible department, existing and potential resources and the timeframe to complete each action? • Does the new or updated prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of cost-benefit review to maximize benefits? • Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred?
PAGE 5-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 119 SECTION 5
REGION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table of Contents MITIGATION STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 MITIGATION MEASURE OVERVIEW ...... 3 STARTUP MEASURES ...... 6 EXISTING MITIGATION ACTIONS ...... 6 PLAN MAINTENANCE ...... 6 HAZARD MITIGATION FORUM ...... 8 PIERCE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION FORUM ...... 8 MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 9 CRITICAL FACILITIES: IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE ...... 9 CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION...... 9 RECOVERY PLAN ...... 10 FACILITIES STRENGTHENING PROJECT ...... 11 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES...... 12 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES: ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ...... 12 TREE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM...... 13 EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 15 CRITICAL FACILITIES: SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT ...... 15 WUI FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 16
DEVELOP FIREWISE COMMUNITIES ...... 16 PUBLIC EDUCATION: WUI FIRE ...... 17 ENDNOTES ...... 18
PAGE 5-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 120 Mitigation Measure Overview The measures having been identified, defined, and evaluated; the rest of the process involved prioritization. The process relied upon the identified risks and vulnerabilities, the planning team’s local expertise, public participation, each organization’s needs and capabilities, a cost/benefit review, and input from the chief elected officials. In order to promote implementation of the measures, they were grouped based on the level at which they would be implemented, as described in the Plan Maintenance Section. These levels were:
• Startup Mitigation Measures: Those mitigation measures already in existence within the organization and including the maintenance of the Mitigation Plan. • Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF): Multi-organizational implementation mechanism. • Organization-Wide Mitigation Measures: Mechanism depends on organization. • Public Education Mitigation Measures: Localized level based on targeted communities and their needs and vulnerabilities.
The measures are prioritized within each implementation category. In order to provide consistency, the evaluation process including the eight categories, was used as the basis for the prioritization of measures. This allows for emphasis on the extent to which each measure is cost-effective.
The planning team members from each organization prioritized their organization’s potential mitigation measures based on goals addressed with special attention paid to the measure’s benefit- cost review, its ability to be implemented, and the extent to which it would mitigate one or multiple relevant hazards.
Prioritization of Measures The list was prioritized based on the ongoing work and projects within the city. Development is occurring at a rapid pace within the city and the inevitable growth that follows helps and hinders some of the projects and mitigation strategies. We based the city’s mitigation measures on what seemed reasonable, possible, and plausible given the abilities and time of the city and its staff members.
PAGE 5-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 121
Table 5.2-1 City of Bonney Lake Mitigation Strategy Matrix1
Plan Goals Addressed P L O C P E P E S USTAINABLE ROPERTY ARTNERSHIP REPAREDNESS IFE AND IFE NVIRONMENT CONOMY ONTINUITY OF ONTINUITY PERATIONS Implementation Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Timeline Mitigation Measure
Mechanism Department(s) (years)
S
Multi-Hazard Bonney Lake (Planning and Existing Mitigation Actions (MH) Ongoing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Startup Community Development) Plan Maintenance (MH) Bonney Lake (Executive Department) Ongoing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PC DEM; Bonney Lake Hazard (Executive Department); EPFR; Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum (MH) 1-2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mitigation Forum Sumner School District; City of Sumner Bonney Lake (Public Works— Critical Facilities: Identify and Evaluate (MH) Facilities Mgt.); EPFR (Planning 1-2 ✓ ✓ Division) Capability Identification and Evaluation (MH) Bonney Lake (Executive Department) 1-2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recovery Plan (MH) Bonney Lake (Executive Department) 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bonney Lake (Public Works— Facilities Strengthening Project (MH) 5 ✓ ✓ Facilities Mgt.) Bonney Lake (Public Works); City Government Underground Utilities (MH) 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ Local Utility Providers Bonney Lake (Planning and Community Development; Public Transportation Routes: Alternative Routes (MH) 5 ✓ ✓ Works—Streets & Arterials Streets); EPFR Bonney Lake (Planning and Community Development); EPFR; PC Tree Maintenance Program (MH) 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ DEM; PC Community Services Cooperative Extension 122
PAGE 5-4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Plan Goals Addressed P L O C P E P E S USTAINABLE ROPERTY ARTNERSHIP REPAREDNESS IFE AND IFE NVIRONMENT CONOMY ONTINUITY OF ONTINUITY PERATIONS Implementation Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Timeline Mitigation Measure
Mechanism Department(s) (years)
S
Earthquake Hazard Bonney Lake (Planning and City Government Critical Facilities: Seismic Evaluation (E) Community Development—Facilities 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ Mgt.); EPFR
WUI Fire Hazard EPFR; PC Fire Prevention Bureau; 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Develop Firewise Communities (WUI) WA DNR Public Education EPFR; Sumner School District; PC Public Education: WUI Fire (WUI) Fire Prevention Bureau; Ongoing ✓ ✓ Local Fire Districts 123
PAGE 5-5 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Startup Measures
Existing Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH-Startup-1 Bonney Lake will continue to implement existing programs, policies, and regulations as identified in the Capability Identification Section of this Plan. This includes such actions as updating the Critical Area Regulations and any ensuing land use policies with best available science. It also includes continuing those programs that are identified as technical capabilities.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time, materials, meeting resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be accomplished with local budgets or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Public Services Department 5. Timeline = Ongoing, including measures and activities already implemented 6. Benefit = City-wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will continue to implement existing programs, policies, and regulations as identified in the Capability Identification Section of this Plan. The City has adopted a schedule in the Implementation Section of the City’s comprehensive plan, Bonney Lake 2035, to review the City’s development regulations and comprehensive plan policies on a regular basis to ensure development regulations and land use policies comply with best available science. The City completed a period update of its critical area regulations in 2019. It also includes continuing those programs that are identified as technical capabilities
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Plan Maintenance
Priority: MH-Startup-2 Bonney Lake will adopt those processes outlined in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and other city resources
PAGE 5-6 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 124 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Executive Department 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will adopt those processes outlined in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
PAGE 5-7 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 125 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Hazard Mitigation Forum
Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum
Priority: MH-HMF-1 Bonney Lake will work in conjunction with the County to establish the Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF). The Forum will function as a means of coordinating mitigation planning efforts among all jurisdictions within the County that have completed a mitigation plan. This will ensure efficient use of resources and a more cooperative approach to making a disaster resistant county. The HMF will meet annually, every October. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Staff Time 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = PC DEM; Bonney Lake Executive Department; East Pierce Fire & Rescue; Sumner-Bonney Lake School District; City of Sumner 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = Regional 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will work in conjunction with the County to establish the Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF). The Forum will function as a means of coordinating mitigation planning efforts among all jurisdictions within the County that have completed a mitigation plan. This will ensure efficient use of resources and a more cooperative approach to making a disaster resistant county. The HMF will meet annually, every October. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
PAGE 5-8 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 126 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures
Many mitigation programs and projects address multiple hazards. Several of these programs provide public education and information and although they are necessary staples of mitigation, their effectiveness is hardly possible to calculate in firm cost/benefit terms.
Critical Facilities: Identify and Evaluate
Priority: MH-CG-1 Bonney Lake will identify its critical facilities and evaluate vulnerabilities. Based on the identified vulnerabilities, the City will determine facility-specific mitigation measures needed to mitigate against disasters. This will lead to evaluations of backup generators and site security issues. The City will then take the necessary steps to provide access limitation security to those facilities. This will occur in accordance with the FEMA 426 planning recommendations.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property and Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and resources depending on the vulnerability identified 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake (Public Works--Facilities Mgt); East Pierce Fire & Rescue 5. Timeline = On-going 6. Benefit = Facility Specific, City-wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will identify its critical facilities and evaluate vulnerabilities. Based on the identified vulnerabilities, the City will determine facility-specific mitigation measures needed to mitigate against disasters. This will lead to evaluations of backup generators and site security issues. The City will then take the necessary steps to provide access limitation security to those facilities. This will occur in accordance with the FEMA 426 planning recommendations.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Capability Identification and Evaluation
Priority: MH-CG-2 Bonney Lake will develop a consistent and replicable system for evaluating the City’s capabilities. A comprehensive evaluation will lead to specific policy recommendations to more effectively achieve disaster resistant communities. Further, a capability evaluation involves measurable variables so that capabilities may eventually be tracked in conjunction with the implementation of
PAGE 5-9 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 127 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM all mitigation measures. This is a key component in evaluating the success of the City’s overall mitigation strategy. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Executive Department 5. Timeline = On-going 6. Benefit = City-wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will develop a consistent and replicable system for evaluating the City’s capabilities. A comprehensive evaluation will lead to specific policy recommendations to more effectively achieve disaster resistant communities. Further, a capability evaluation involves measurable variables so that capabilities may eventually be tracked in conjunction with the implementation of all mitigation measures. This is a key component in evaluating the success of the City’s overall mitigation strategy. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Recovery Plan
Priority: MH-CG-3 The Bonney Lake Executive Department will develop a comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plan. This will be a pre-event plan for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, composed of policies, plans, actions and responsibilities. It will include an element of business resumption and long-term economic sustainability. There will be an emphasis on the transition of recovery to mitigation and the synergy of these two phases of emergency management.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = TBD; additional costs to perform or include upgrades in new construction or in retrofitting existing structures 3. Funding Source and Situation = PDM and Economic Development Administration (US Chamber of Commerce) grants. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake(Executive Department 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct, municipal government
PAGE 5-10 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 128 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 7. Life of Measure = Project specific 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments The Bonney Lake Executive Department will develop a comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plan. This will be a pre-event plan for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, composed of policies, plans, actions and responsibilities. It will include an element of business resumption and long- term economic sustainability. There will be an emphasis on the transition of recovery to mitigation and the synergy of these two phases of emergency management.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Facilities Strengthening Project
Priority: MH-CG-4 Bonney Lake may include structural mitigation of City-owned facilities for all hazards when performing an earthquake structural retrofit.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Additional costs to perform or include upgrades in new construction or in retrofitting existing structures 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Executive Department 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct, municipal government 7. Life of Measure = Project specific 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2015 – 2020 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake may include structural mitigation of City-owned facilities for all hazards when performing an earthquake structural retrofit.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
PAGE 5-11 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 129 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
Underground Utilities
Priority: MH-CG-5 Bonney Lake will work in conjunction with Pierce County and local utility providers to encourage the placement of all utilities (i.e., power lines) underground. This will limit the potential damage to infrastructure as well as the damage that infrastructure could cause to life and property. Where this is not economically feasible for the utility provider, homeowners could have the option to have their utilities placed underground through an individualized rate structure.2
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Varies depending on materials, location, permits, etc. 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or contributions from utilities 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake (Public Works); Local Utility Providers 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct benefit to all local governments, residents and businesses 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = This proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake has adopted regulations that require all existing and new overhead utilities to be installed underground as part of the construction of a development. PSE 15K volt transmission lines are exempt from this requirement. The City will continue to work with local utility providers on the placement of all existing utilities (i.e., power lines) underground. This will limit the potential damage to infrastructure as well as the damage that infrastructure could cause to life and property. Where this is not economically feasible for the utility provider, homeowners could have the option to have their utilities placed underground through an individualized rate structure.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Transportation Routes: Alternative Routes
Priority: MH-CG-5 Bonney Lake may offer reasonable alternative routes to communities which will both support emergency response access and discourage residents from attempting to use flooded roads. In order to accomplish this, the City will evaluate all existing transportation routes and current transportation plans and identify potential problems in the event of a flood. This will lead to the development and
PAGE 5-12 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 130 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM implementation of alternative access to potentially impacted communities. This may occur through formal transportation planning and road construction but may also include private landowner agreements or easement purchases.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = TBD; staff time, special materials such as temporary signage, cooperative effort with property owners 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Public Services Dept. and East Pierce Fire & Rescue 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct benefit to all local governments, residents and some businesses 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake may offer reasonable alternative routes to communities which will both support emergency response access and discourage residents from attempting to use flooded roads. In order to accomplish this, the City will evaluate all existing transportation routes and current transportation plans and identify potential problems in the event of a flood. This will lead to the development and implementation of alternative access to potentially impacted communities. This may occur through formal transportation planning and road construction but may also include private landowner agreements or easement purchases.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
Tree Maintenance Program
Priority: MH-CG-7 Bonney Lake will work with EPFR and Pierce County programs to trim tree branches and cut down trees which might threaten the safety of either the citizens or the public infrastructure. The County will expand the program to work with gardening centers, Master Gardeners, and the Pierce County Cooperative Extension to develop a continuing program to assist the public with preventing storm damage through the proper use of vegetation and trimming of dangerous limbs. This program will be developed in unison with similar information on fire mitigation through creation of “defensible space”.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time, materials, permits, equipment and other resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Public Services Dept., East Pierce Fire & Rescue, PC DEM; PC Community Services Cooperative Extension 5. Timeline = Long-term
PAGE 5-13 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 131 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 6. Benefit = Direct benefit to City and its residents 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will work with utility providers to trim tree branches and cut down trees which might threaten the overhead public utility infrastructure. The City has established exemptions in the City tree code and critical areas code to exempt the removal of dangerous/hazardous trees from permitting and associated fees and established tree trimming standards to assist the public with preventing storm damage through the proper use of vegetation and trimming of dangerous limbs.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan
PAGE 5-14 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 132 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Earthquake Mitigation Measures
Critical Facilities: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
Priority: EQ-CG-1 Bonney Lake will evaluate City-owned critical facilities not meeting current code to determine their earthquake structural integrity. This requires preparation of information to allow budgeting for renovation of those facilities that are not up to current code or have structural deficiencies that have developed over the years.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Ensure Continuity of Operations, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = TBD; staff time to identify deficiencies; engineering costs vary depending on specific retrofit projects. 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Executive Dept. – Facilities Mgt., East Pierce Fire & Rescue 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct benefit to all local governments, residents and businesses 7. Life of Measure = Varies 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments Bonney Lake will evaluate City-owned critical facilities not meeting current code to determine their earthquake structural integrity. This project includes identification of deficiencies and preparation of engineering specifications to allow budgeting for renovation of those facilities that are not up to current code or have structural deficiencies that have developed over the years.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X X
PAGE 5-15 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 133 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM WUI Fire Mitigation Measures
Develop Firewise Communities
Priority: WUI-CG-1 Bonney Lake will support EPFR in its efforts to create Firewise communities. This involves planning and carrying out Firewise workshops in high hazard areas in collaboration with EPFR, homeowners, developers, and others. Each workshop will result in a local action plan for homeowners, fire safety professionals, land use planners, and others. The National WUI Fire Program created this innovative mitigation program so that communities and individuals can learn how to recognize, evaluate and mitigate the wildland/urban interface fire dangers in their communities. The workshops gather private and public sector citizens including architects, bankers, fire marshals, insurance reps, realtors and property owners for a two-day mitigation exercise in which participants review a case study community, identify hazards, resolve conflicting interests and develop a mitigation plan.3
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = National program materials, coordination with Fire, time and resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = Firewise Grants – The only potential funding source is a federal or state mitigation grant 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = EPFR; PC Fire Prevention Bureau; WA DNR 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Regional 7. Life of Measure = Life of community participation 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred
Comments
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan
PAGE 5-16 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 134 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Public Education: WUI Fire
Priority: WUI-CG-2 Bonney Lake will continue to support EPFR in its public education campaigns regarding fire. This includes the incorporation of information on wildfire hazards into the normal fire curricula put on by EPFR and the Sumner School District.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Increase Public Preparedness for Disasters 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials, volunteer time 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = EPFR; Sumner School District; PC Fire Prevention Bureau; Local Fire Districts 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-wide and regional 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual once established 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred
Comments
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan
PAGE 5-17 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 135 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Endnotes
1 Hazard Codes: Where necessary, the specific hazards addressed are noted as follows: A: Avalanche EQ: Earthquake FL: Flood D: Drought T: Tsunami V (l or Volcanic (lahar or tephra-specific) t): SW: Severe Storm (wind-specific) LS: Landslide WUI: Wildland/Urban Interface Fire MM: Man-made to include terrorism All hazards, including some man-made. Where only natural hazards are addressed, it MH: is noted.
1 While this Plan is strictly a Natural hazard mitigation plan, where a measure stems from a facility recommendation (Infrastructure Section) that deals specifically with terrorism, the mitigation strategy will use that analysis. Other measures, such as those that deal with multi-hazard community preparedness or recovery planning, mitigate man-made hazards and are noted as such. It is not the intent of this notation to imply that all measures were analyzed with regard to man-made hazards or that measures were identified with that in mind. Rather, the notation merely illustrates the potential on this template for the inclusion of man-made hazard analysis.
2 Pierce County Code, Title 19.80.020. http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/Abtus/ourorg/council/code/title%2019a%20pcc.pdf [Accessed Internet January, 2007]. 3 For more information on Firewise Communities, see http://www.firewise.org.
PAGE 5-18 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 136 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Section 6
Infrastructure Requirements
Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.
• Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? • Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses---Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(B):
The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. • Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? • Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?
PAGE 6-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
137
PAGE 6-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
138 SECTION 6
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION
The Infrastructure Section is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.420. Request for public disclosure of this document or parts thereof should be referred immediately to the City of Bonney Lake’s City Manager.
Distribution or changes to this document without the express written consent of the City of Bonney Lake City’s Manager is prohibited.
PAGE 6-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
139
(This page intentionally left blank)
PAGE 6-4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
140 Section 7
Plan Maintenance Procedures Requirements
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan---Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. • Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan, including the responsible department? • Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan, including how, when and by whom (i.e. the responsible department)? • Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle? Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms---Requirement §201.6(c)(4) (ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate… • Does the new or updated plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan? • Does the new or updated plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? • Does the updated plan explain how the local government incorporated the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? Continued Public Involvement---Requirement §201.6(c)(4) (iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. • Does the new or updated plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? (For example, will there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?)
141 SECTION 7
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE PLAN MAINTENANCE SECTION
Table of Contents
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 PLAN ADOPTION...... 3 MAINTENANCE STRATEGY ...... 3 IMPLEMENTATION ...... 4 Public Education Programs ...... 5 Jurisdiction-Wide: Executive Department ...... 5 Hazard Mitigation Forum ...... 5 REGIONAL MITIGATION PLANNING...... 7 PLAN EVALUATION AND UPDATE ...... 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 8 ENDNOTES ...... 10
142 The updated planning process began in the spring of 2012 and is continuing to build on the foundation of breaking the disaster cycle by planning for a disaster resistant City of Bonney Lake and Pierce County Region 5. This section details the formal process that will guarantee the Bonney Lake Hazard Mitigation Plan continues to remain an active and relevant document. The Plan Maintenance Section includes a description of the documentation citing the plan's formal adoption by the City of Bonney Lake City Council. The section also describes the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating within the next five-year cycle; the process for incorporating the mitigation strategy into existing mechanisms and the process for integrating public participation throughout the plan maintenance. The section serves as a guide for implementation of the hazard mitigation strategy.
Plan Adoption Upon completion of the Bonney Lake Hazard Mitigation Plan it will be submitted to Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) for a Pre-Adoption Review. The EMD has 30 days to review and approve the plan and forward it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X for review. This review, which is allowed 45 days by law, will address the federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201.6. In completing this review, there may be revisions requested by the EMD and/or FEMA. Revisions could include changes to background information, editorial comments, and the alteration of technical content. Pierce County Department of Emergency Management (PC DEM) will call a Planning Team Meeting to address any revisions needed and resubmit the plan with appropriate changes.
The Bonney Lake City Council is responsible for the adoption of the plan after the Pre- Adoption Review by the EMD and the FEMA Region X. Once the City adopts the plan, the City Clerk will be responsible for submitting it, with a copy of the signed resolution, to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at Washington State EMD. EMD will then act on the Plan and forward it to the FEMA Region X for final approval. Upon approval by FEMA, the City will gain eligibility for both Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program funds.
Appendix A will list the dates and include a copy of the signed resolution from the jurisdiction as well as a copy of the FEMA letter approving of the jurisdiction’s plan. In future updates of the plan, Appendix C will be used to track changes and/or updates. This plan will have to be re-adopted and re-approved prior to the five-year deadline of 2025.
Maintenance Strategy The City of Bonney Lake maintenance strategy for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation provides a structure that encourages collaboration, information transference, and innovation. Through a multi-tiered implementation method, the City will provide its citizens a highly localized approach to loss reduction while serving their needs through coordinated policies and programs. The method’s emphasis, on all levels of participation, promotes public involvement and adaptability to changing risks and vulnerabilities. Finally, it will provide a
143 tangible link between citizens and the various levels of government service, ranging from community action to the Department of Homeland Security. Through this strategy, Bonney Lake will continue to break the disaster cycle and achieve a more disaster resistant community.
Implementation The City of Bonney continually evaluates and updates regulations to implement this plan. In 2017, the City updated the floodplain regulations to be consistent with FEMA requirements to include the new FEMA Flood Maps. In 2019, the City conducted a comprehensive review of environmental critical areas regulations to determine that they are in line with “best available science.” Environmental critical areas include hazardous areas such as floodplains, landslide prone areas, and seismic hazard areas. The City adopted corresponding updates to the regulations based on the analysis to limit development when in these environmental hazardous areas. As part of the City’s 2020 comprehensive plan update, the City is adding a resiliency section to its Environmental Stewardship Element to develop policies developed focusing on building community resilience and preparing for inevitable disasters and the post- disaster to recovery. Throughout all of these processes for adoption the public was informed and had the opportunity to comment.
In order to ensure efficient and effective implementation, the City of Bonney Lake will make use of its capabilities, infrastructure, and dedicated population. The City will implement its mitigation strategy over the next five years primarily through the annual City of Bonney Lake budget process and varying grant application processes. All programs and entities identified in the Capability Identification Section will serve as the implementing mechanisms within those processes.
The City Administrator will work in conjunction with those departments/agencies/entities identified in both the Capability Identification Section and under each mitigation measure to initiate the mitigation strategy. For example, any infrastructure-related measures will be implemented through the jurisdiction infrastructure related plan, such as the Capital Facilities Plan, and the various departments and/or agencies involved through the normal budget schedule. Regulatory and land use measures will continue to be implemented through collaboration with the City’s Public Services Department and through updates of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Other measures will be implemented through collaboration with the identified jurisdictions/departments listed under each measure’s evaluation and through the mechanisms and funding sources identified in the Capability Identification Section. These efforts fall under a broader implementation strategy that represents a county-wide effort. This strategy must be adaptable to change while being consistent in its delivery.
The mitigation implementation strategy is a three-tiered method that emphasizes localized needs and vulnerabilities while addressing City as well as multi-jurisdictional policies and programs. The first tier is implementation through individual citizen level—Public Education Programs already existing in the City such as information provided to citizens through utility bills. The second is the City-wide mechanism for implementation, in this case the City
144 Administration in conjunction with Pierce County Emergency Management. The third tier is a more external and multi-jurisdictional mechanism, the Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF).
This method ensures that implementation speaks to unique vulnerabilities at the most local level, allows for coordination among and between levels, and promotes collaboration and innovation. Further, it provides a structured system of monitoring implementation. Finally, it is a method that can adapt to the changing vulnerabilities of the City, the region, and the times. These three levels and their means of implementation and collaboration are described below.
Public Education Programs
At the individual citizen level, public education programs provide the City with a localized mechanism for implementation. This approach to mitigation can adapt to the varying vulnerabilities and needs within the growing City and region. Public education programs are also a means for involving the public in mitigation policy development. Departments conducting mitigation-related programs will provide the existing targeted neighborhoods and special-needs populations a catalogue of mitigation measures from which individuals can choose those that would be most effective in their neighborhood.
Jurisdiction-Wide: Executive Department
The Executive Department will be responsible for determining the direction of the plan’s implementation. The Mayor and City Administrator are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the City and its departments, the annual budget, and personnel. The City Administration follows the general policy as set by the City Council. The City Administration is responsible for the selection, evaluation, and training of all city staff. It oversees, coordinates, and manages the activities of all city departments and offices in carrying out the requirements of ordinances, laws, rules and regulations.
Initially, the Executive Department will be responsible for the overall review of the plan and will designate mitigation measures to those departments responsible for their implementation. This will be done with assistance from the department heads of the City. The Emergency Management Committee composed of various representatives of City departments will address the Plan on an annual basis in the fall as needed and make any recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. The City Administrator will monitor the plan’s implementation throughout the year and report as needed to the City Council. Any recommended mitigation projects to be implemented will be made to coincide with the normal budgeting process and provide an ample time period for review and adoption of any necessary changes.
Hazard Mitigation Forum
The PC Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF) represents a broader and multi-jurisdictional approach to mitigation implementation. The PC HMF will be comprised of all representatives from unincorporated Pierce County and all jurisdictions, partially or wholly, within its borders, that have undertaken mitigation planning efforts. The PC HMF will serve as
145 coordinating body for projects of a multi-jurisdictional nature and will provide a mechanism to share successes and increase the cooperation necessary to break the disaster cycle and achieve a disaster resistant Pierce County. Members of the PC HMF will include the following jurisdictions who have completed, or who have begun the process of completing, DMA 2000 compliant plans:
• City of Bonney Lake • City of Buckley • City of Bonney Lake • City of Buckley • City of DuPont • City of Edgewood • City of Fife • City of Fircrest • City of Gig Harbor • City of Lakewood • City of Milton • City of Orting • City of Puyallup • City of Roy • City of Sumner • City of Tacoma • City of University Place • Town of Carbonado • Town of Eatonville • Town of South Prairie • Town of Steilacoom • Town of Wilkeson • Unincorporated Pierce County • Central Pierce Fire and Rescue #6 • East Pierce Fire and Rescue #22 • Gig Harbor Fire and Medic One #5 • Graham Fire and Rescue #21 • Key Peninsula Fire Department #16 • Orting Valley Fire and Rescue #18 • Browns Point Fire Department #13 • Riverside Fire and Rescue #14 • Ashford Elbe Fire District #23 • Anderson Island Fire and Rescue #27 • South Pierce Fire and Rescue #17 • West Pierce Fire and Rescue #3 • Carbonado School District • Clover Park School District • Dieringer School District • Eatonville School District • Fife School District • Franklin Pierce School District • Orting School District • Pacific Lutheran University • Peninsula School District • Puyallup School District • Steilacoom School District • Sumner School District • Tacoma School District • University Place School District • Crystal Village HOA • Crystal River Ranch HOA • Metropolitan Park District • Pierce Transit • Port of Tacoma • Riviera Community Club • Taylor Bay Beach Club • Clear Lake Water District • Firgrove Mutual Water Company • Fruitland Mutual Water Company • Graham Hill Mutual Water Company • Lakeview Light and Power • Lakewood Water District • Mt. View-Edgewood Water Company • Ohop Mutual Light Company • Parkland Light and Water Company • Peninsula Light Company • Spanaway Water Company • Summit Water and Supply Company • Valley Water District • Cascade Regional Blood Services • Community Health Care • Franciscan Health System • Kaiser Permenate • MultiCare Health System
146 • Western State Hospital • Puyallup Tribe of Indians • Tacoma Pierce County Health Dept. • Bethel School District
Coordinated by the PC DEM, the PC HMF will meet annually in November. The City of Bonney Lake will be an active participant in the PC HMF and will be represented by the designated Planning Partner or their representative. Only through this level of cooperation can these jurisdictions meet all their mitigation goals.
Regional Mitigation Planning Pierce County, Region 5 was configured into 5 planning groups based on a commonality in geographical hazards for the 2020-2025 mitigation plan update to foster relationship building and resiliency planning amongst jurisdictions. Although much of the meeting and planning time focused on plan updates and fostered relationship building the resiliency planning component will continue within multi-jurisdictional groups working together to further reduce risk. This provides another opportunity for continued collaboration planning amongst jurisdictions working and partnering together. The meeting frequency will be driven by the mitigation implementation strategy and combines the three-tiered approach. The City of Bonney Lake will continue to engage within the “northeast group” geographical planning area and will provide the specific department representative to engage in and implement mitigation activities within this geographical group.
Plan Evaluation and Update It should be noted this planning process began in early 2012 following the then current CFR 201.6 Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirements. Based on new requirements in the Stafford Act, the City of Bonney Lake will evaluate and update the plan to incorporate these new requirements as necessary. Furthermore, if there are additional Stafford Act changes affecting CFR 201.6 in the coming years, the planning process will incorporate those as well.
The Bonney Lake Hazard Mitigation Plan will guide the City’s mitigation efforts for the foreseeable future. The City of Bonney Lake representatives on the Planning Team have developed a method to ensure that regular review and update of the plan occur within a five- year cycle. The PC DEM will coordinate any reviews through the fall meeting noted above.
PC DEM will collaborate with the City and the PC HMF to monitor and evaluate the mitigation strategy implementation. PC DEM will track this implementation through Pierce County’s GIS database. Findings will be presented and discussed at the annual meeting.
The City Administrator will provide a report of the plan’s implementation to the City Council at any annual meeting. This report will drive the meeting agendas and will include the following:
• Updates on implementation throughout the City;
147 • Updates on the PC HMF and mitigation activities undertaken by neighboring jurisdictions; • Changes or anticipated changes in hazard risk and vulnerability at the City, county, regional, State, FEMA and Homeland Security levels; • Problems encountered or success stories; • Any technical or scientific advances that may alter, make easier, or create measures.
The Administrative Group and local experts will decide on updates to the plan’s strategy based on the above information and a discussion of:
• The various resources available through budgetary means as well as any relevant grants; • The current and expected political environment and public opinion; • Meeting the mitigation goals with regards to changing conditions.
PC DEM will work with the City to review the Risk Assessment Section to determine if the current assessment should be updated or modified based on new information. This will be done during the regularly scheduled reviews of the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis and the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
Additional reviews of this Plan will be required following disaster events and will not substitute for the annual meeting. Within ninety days following a significant disaster or an emergency event impacting the City, the City’s designated Emergency Manager will provide an assessment that captures any “success stories” and/or “lessons learned.” The assessment will detail direct and indirect damages to the City and its infrastructure, response and recovery costs, as part of the standard recovery procedures that use EMD Forms 129, 130, and 140. This process will help determine any new mitigation initiatives that should be incorporated into the plan to avoid or reduce similar losses due to future hazard events. In this manner, recovery efforts and data will be used to analyze mitigation activities and spawn the development of new measures that better address any changed vulnerabilities or capabilities. Any updates to the plan will be addressed at the annual November meeting.
As per 44 CFR 201.6, the City of Bonney Lake must re-submit the plan to the State and FEMA with any updates every five years. This process will be coordinated by PC DEM through the Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum. In 2013 and every five years following at the Hazard Mitigation Forum, the City of Bonney Lake Administrative Group will submit the updated plan to PC DEM. PC DEM’s Mitigation and Recovery Program Manager will collect updates from any Region 5 Plan jurisdictions and submit them to the State EMD and FEMA within the appropriate timeframes.
Continued Public Involvement The City of Bonney Lake is dedicated to continued public involvement and education in review and updates of this plan. The City of Bonney Lake Emergency Management
148 Department and the Planning Department will retain copies of the plan and will make it available to the public.
The three-tiered implementation method provides an opportunity for continuous public involvement. Public Education campaigns are a means of informing the public on updates and implementation activities. Further, prior to submitting the plan to WA EMD and FEMA for the five-year review, the City of Bonney Lake will hold a public information and comment meeting. This meeting will provide citizens a forum during which they can express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about the City of Bonney Lake Hazard Mitigation Plan. This meeting will be advertised by the City through a variety of media, including the local newspaper and our City Town Topics and a posting on the website1.
The City of Bonney Lake will conduct a review on a yearly basis to ensure all elements of the mitigation plan are updated and accurate. Each of the 76 jurisdictions has been tasked with having to provide documentation on public involvement including a brief description for each public hearing held, a summary on attendance, any feedback received from the public and the an overall description of what was accomplished. Even further, the City of Bonney Lake will provide proof of their attempts for public involvement such as screenshots of websites including date ranges, flyers and other relevant material documenting the public involvement process. Lastly, the City of Bonney Lake will look for new innovative ways for public involvement.
149 Endnotes
1 http://www.ci.bonney-lake.wa.us
150 APPENDIX A
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITON CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Plan Adoption The “Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan” was adopted by the City of Bonney Lake’s City Council on XXX by resolution number XXX. The following page shows a copy of that resolution.
APPENDIX PAGE A-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 151 (Placeholder for Resolution)
APPENDIX PAGE A-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 152 (Placeholder for Resolution)
APPENDIX PAGE A-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 153 The plan was reviewed and approved as follows: AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE DATE Washington State Tim Cook Military Dept., Hazard Mitigation Programs Approved— Emergency Management Manager Division Tamra Biasco FEMA Region X Chief, Risk Analysis Branch Approved— Mitigation Division
FEMA letter of pre-approval and letter of approval follows below.
APPENDIX PAGE A-4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 154 (Placeholder for FEMA-Approval Letter)
APPENDIX PAGE A-5 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 155 (Placeholder for FEMA-Approval Letter, page 2)
APPENDIX PAGE A-6 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 156 (Placeholder for FEMA-Approval Letter, page 3)
APPENDIX PAGE A-7 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 157 APPENDIX A
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2015-2020 EDITON CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Plan Adoption The “Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan” was adopted by the City of Bonney Lake’s City Council on March 10, 2015 by resolution number 2438. The following page shows a copy of that resolution.
APPENDIX PAGE A-8 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 158
APPENDIX PAGE A-9 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 159
APPENDIX PAGE A-10 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 160 The plan was reviewed and approved as follows: AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE DATE Washington State Tim Cook Military Dept., Hazard Mitigation Programs Approved— Emergency Management Manager Division Tamra Biasco FEMA Region X Chief, Risk Analysis Branch Approved— February 2, 2015 Mitigation Division
FEMA Pre-Adoption Letter and FEMA Letter of approval follows below.
APPENDIX PAGE A-11 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 161
APPENDIX PAGE A-12 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 162
APPENDIX PAGE A-13 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 163
APPENDIX PAGE A-14 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 164 APPENDIX A
REGION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2008-2013 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Plan Adoption The “Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan” was adopted by the City of Bonney Lake’s City Council on February 22, 2011 by resolution #2106. The following page shows a copy of that resolution.
APPENDIX PAGE A-15 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 165
APPENDIX PAGE A-16 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 166
APPENDIX PAGE A-17 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 167 (This page intentionally left blank)
APPENDIX PAGE A-18 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 168 The plan was reviewed and approved as follows: AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE DATE Washington State Military Dept., Jamie Mooney Approved— Emergency Management Division Mark Carey FEMA Region X Approved—April 18, 2012 Mitigation Division Director
FEMA Letter of approval follows below.
APPENDIX PAGE A-19 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 169
APPENDIX PAGE A-20 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 170
APPENDIX PAGE A-21 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 171 (This page left blank intentionally)
172 APPENDIX B
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Planning Member
City of Bonney Lake NAME TITLE JURISDICTION-DEPARTMENT Administrative Services Harwood Edvalson Director / Emergency City of Bonney Lake Management Coordinator John Vodopich City Administrator City of Bonney Lake Bryan Jeter Police Chief City of Bonney Lake Cherie Reireson Chief Finance Officer City of Bonney Lake Interim Public Services City of Bonney Lake Ryan Johnston Director Planning & Building Jason Sullivan City of Bonney Lake Supervisor Executive Assistant / Manager Leslie Harris City of Bonney Lake Analyst Facilities & Special Project Gary Leaf City of Bonney Lake Manager
APPENDIX PAGE B-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 173 (This page intentionally left blank)
APPENDIX PAGE B-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 174 APPENDIX C
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE
Plan Revisions
RECORD OF CHANGES Change Description of Change (with page numbers) Date Authorized by: Number
175 (This page intentionally left blank)
176 APPENDIX D
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE AND PIERCE COUNTY SCENARIO
OVERVIEW
This appendix contains the spatial results from the Hazus Earthquake Scenario results showing the Essential Facilities for 90% functionality for Day 1 and Day 7 following an earthquake event based on three earthquakes scenarios. Information was based on ShakeMaps developed by U.S. Geological Survey for a 7.1M earthquake occurring on the Tacoma Fault, 7.2M earthquake on the Nisqually Fault and a 7.2M earthquake on the SeaTac Fault. There was a total of four Essential Facilities that were modeled; fire stations, police stations, schools and hospitals. Additional information can be found in the Risk Assessment Section of the Pierce County All Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Inherent Errors
As a special note to the Gig Harbor and Key Peninsula areas St. Anthony’s Hospital is not identified on Maps D-11, D-12 D-20, D-21, D-29 or D-30 due to the recent construction of St. Anthony’s Hospital and lack of data. With future updates of the Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan, St. Anthony’s Hospital will be included in the scenario analysis. If this information becomes available prior to the five-year update in 2025, revised analysis will be done and the revised maps will be distributed to the City of Gig Harbor, Gig Harbor Fire & Medic One and the Key Peninsula Fire Department.
It has been identified that the police station located to the west side of Orting is not in the correct location as seen on Maps: D-9, D-10, D-18, D-19, D-27 and D-28. The police department shares a building with the Fire District #18 at 401 Washington Ave S, which is located in the middle of town. As Hazus-MH is updated the police station will show a co-location with the fire station at this same location. If this information becomes available prior to the five-year update in 2025, revised analysis will be done and the revised maps will be distributed to the City of Orting and to Pierce County Fire District #18.
177 (This page left blank intentionally)
178 Map D-1 City of Bonney Lake Tacoma Fault Scenario Essential Facilities Day 1
179 Map D-2 City of Bonney Lake Tacoma Fault Scenario Essential Facilities Day 7
180 Map D-3 City of Bonney Lake Nisqually Fault Scenario Essential Facilities Day 1
181 Map D-4 City of Bonney Lake Nisqually Fault Scenario Essential Facilities Day 7
182 Map D-5 City of Bonney Lake SEATAC Fault Scenario Essential Facilities Day 1
183 Map D-6 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Total Losses
184 Map D-7 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Fire Department Functionality Day 1
185 Map D-8 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Fire Department Functionality Day 7
186 Map D-9 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Police Department Functionality Day 11
187 Map D-10 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Police Department Functionality Day 72
188 Map D-11 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Hospitals Functionality Day 13
189 Map D-12 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario Hospitals Functionality Day 74 190 Map D-13 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario School Functionality Day 1 191 Map D-14 Pierce County Tacoma Fault Scenario School Functionality Day 7
192 Map D-15 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Total Losses
193 Map D-16 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Fire Stations Functionality Day 1 194 Map D-17 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Fire Stations Functionality Day 7 195 Map D-18 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Police Departments Functionality Day 1 5 196 Map D-19 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Police Departments Functionality Day 7 6 197 Map D-20 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Hospital Functionality Day 1 7 198 Map D-21 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Hospital Functionality Day 78 199 Map D-22 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Schools Functionality Day 1 200 Map D-23 Pierce County Nisqually Fault Scenario Schools Functionality Day 7 201 Map D-24 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Total Losses
202 Map D-25 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Fire Stations Functionality Day 1 203 Map D-26 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Fire Stations Functionality Day 7 204 Map D-27 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Police Department Functionality Day 1 9 205 Map D-28 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Police Department Functionality Day 710 206 Map D-29 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Hospital Functionality Day 1 Map11 207 Map D-30 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Hospital Functionality Day 712 208 Map D-31 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Schools Functionality Day 1 209 Map D-32 Pierce County SEATAC Fault Scenario Schools Functionality Day 7 210 Endnotes
1 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 2 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 3 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done. 4 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done. 5 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 6 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 7 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done. 8 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done. 9 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 10 Hazus has placed the police station location incorrectly for the City of Orting. It should be located in the middle of the city with Fire District #18 as they share the same building. 11 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done. 12 St. Anthony’s Hospital is not included on the map due to the recent construction of the hospital lack of data at the time the analysis was done.
211 (This page left blank intentionally)
212 APPENDIX E
REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE DOCUMENTATION RECORDS
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 PUBLIC COMMENT DOCUMENTATION ...... 3 ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING – JANUARY 15, 2019...... 3 PUBLIC COMMENT DOCUMENTATION ...... 6
PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR 2020-2025 EDITION ...... 6
213 (This page left blank intentionally)
214 PUBLIC COMMENT DOCUMENTATION
Elected Officials Meeting – January 15, 2019
215 216 217 PUBLIC COMMENT DOCUMENTATION
Public Meetings for 2020-2025 Edition The City of Bonney Lake held one of its Public Involvement and Comment Meeting on National Night Out Community Event, August 6, 2019 for the update of the current All Hazard Mitigation Plan from 6:00pm to 9:00pm. Preparedness information was also available to the public as a public outreach component to the event.
The City of Bonney Lake provided another opportunity to the public to gather feedback on their Bonney Lake Days celebration in August of 2019 which included an eight question survey asking them to rate participants concerns for a list of hazards; personal, business and family preparedness for response to hazards; and sources of information used to inform them about hazards facing the community. In addition, there was an online survey available which some Bonney Lake residents have participated in. The Community Preparedness Survey was developed through Pierce County Emergency Management to determine how prepared a jurisdiction’s citizens are and collect any suggestions provided for mitigating local hazards. The City of Bonney Lake posted the survey link to their website and several residents participated, mostly ranging from age 36-45, with a many other age 46-55. Some respondents were aware of their local hazards; everyone was mainly concerned with earthquakes, but also listed lahars, severe winter, windstorms and household fires as hazards that posed a threat to their community. Surprisingly wildland fire was not a hazard that concerned many residences. Only half of the folks said they had discussed an emergency plan with their family and collected important documents in a safe location. The main sources of emergency information for the community are internet, television, radio, and social media apps. These respondents chose not to provide suggestions or feedback for mitigation strategies for the City, but the option was available to them. The Community Preparedness Survey has been available November 11, 2019 and remains open to all residents of Pierce County. The first question in the survey asks residents what jurisdiction they live in so that individual’s responses can be counted for a specific jurisdiction. Pierce County Department of Emergency Management has access to the database of survey results and monitors them regularly to provide updates to jurisdictions that have advertised the link on their website and/or social media. This method of public outreach provides a more
218 inclusive approach to communities that may not be able to attend in-person meetings like traditional outreach events that have been held in the past. Providing both a physical meeting and an online option ensures that the whole community is being involved in the planning process for the City of Bonney Lake’s All Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows some of the results from the survey that 24 residences in the City of Bonney Lake responded to.
What is your age? How many people are Discussed an Started or Signed up for in your household, emergency completed an Pierce County including yourself? plan? emergency ALERT? Yes supply kit? Yes 18-25: 0 out of 23 3: 5 out of 22 13 out of 23 13 out of 23 4 out of 23 26-35: 2 out of 23 4: 9 out of 22 36-45: 11 out of 23 5: 7 out of 22 46-55: 10 out of 23 7: 1 out of 22 56-65: 0 out of 23
I have an emergency plan in place with my family Where do you go to find emergency information? in case I am not able to leave work at my normal (Check All That Apply) time due to a hazardous event. Yes - 7 out of 24 Internet: 17 out of 24 No – 15 out of 24 Social Media: 11 out of 24 Does not apply: 2 out of 24 TV, Radio: 16 out of 24
Do you feel prepared to respond to the following hazards:
Severe Puyallup Earthquake Prediction Hear lahar Property, I know my wind River or over 6.0 of severe sirens in the dwelling, community's warning Carbon magnitude winter valley (not or designated and/or River weather monthly household evacuation routes power flooding test sirens) loss due to in case of an outage fire emergency 19 out of 9 out of 24 1 out of 24 15 out of 2 out of 24 2 out of 24 Yes 5 out of 24 24 24 No 17 out of 24 Sort of: 4 Sort of: 6 Sort of: 12 Sort of: 7 Sort of: 6 Sort of: 8 Sort of: 2 out of 24 out of 24 out of 24 out of 24 out of 24 out of 24 out of 24
219 Secured your home Braced unreinforced masonry, Secured your water heater, cabinets, to its foundation? concrete walls, and chimney? bookcases, and pictures to the wall? Yes Yes Yes 13 out of 24 4 out of 24 13 out of 24 Does not apply 5 out Does not apply 13 out of 24 Does not apply 0 out of 24 of 24
Which of the following disasters are you most concerned about? Earthquake: 20 out of 24 Wildfire (WUI) 5 out 24 Windstorm: 4 out of 24 Household Fire: 3 out of 24 Severe Winter: 15 out of 24 Human Created: 3 out of 24 Lahar/Mudslide: 9 out of 24 Volcanos: 0 out of 24 Landslide/Debris Flow: 5 out of 24 Electrical Outages: 0 out of 24
220 APPENDIX F
REGION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE COMPLETED/DEFERRED STRATEGES
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 DEFERRED OR COMPLETED MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...... 2 COMPLETED STRATEGIES ...... 4
ESSENTIAL RECORDS PROTECTION ...... 4 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS ...... 4 ENDNOTES ...... 6
APPENDIX F-1 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 221 Deferred or Completed Mitigation Strategies
The following mitigation strategies were removed from the Section 5 Mitigation Plan and place in Appendix F to retain them. They have either been deferred or completed. In the future as mitigation strategies are completed, they will be moved to this location to provide a history of accomplishments. Deferred mitigation strategies can be moved back into the “working” mitigation strategies of Section 5 at any time.
APPENDIX F-2 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 222 Table F-1 City of Bonney Lake Mitigation Strategy Matrix1
Plan Goals Addressed P L O C P E P E S USTAINABLE ROPERTY ARTNERSHIP REPAREDNESS IFE AND IFE NVIRONMENT CONOMY ONTINUITY OF ONTINUITY PERATIONS Implementation Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Timeline Mitigation Measure
Mechanism Department(s) (years)
S
Multi-Hazard
Bonney Lake (City Clerk); Puget Essential Records Protection (All) 5 ✓ ✓ ✓ Sound Regional Archives Completed Strategies PC PWU; FEMA; Bonney Lake FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (F) (Planning and Community Ongoing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Development) 223
APPENDIX F-3 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN – 2020-2025 EDITION CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Completed Strategies
Essential Records Protection
Hazard: MH
The Bonney Lake Executive Department and City Clerk will ensure that all essential records are protected and/or provided with safe back up. This will be accomplished by developing an essential records protection schedule and a records disaster prevention, response, and recovery plan.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Ensure Continuity of Operations, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Promote a Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time, storage fees, other resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants (PDM and Economic Development Administration (US Chamber of Commerce) 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = Bonney Lake Executive Department 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Direct; all of City of Bonney Lake 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Hazard: FL
Bonney Lake will continue work with FEMA in updating the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the area. This leads to more accurate floodplain regulations and an opportunity to increase public awareness. The LIDAR mapping effort may assist in this effort.
1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property, Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation, Protect the Environment, Promote a Sustainable Economy. 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time to obtain maps and incorporate them into existing City programs 3. Funding Source and Situation = FEMA Map Modernization Program 4. Lead Jurisdiction(s) = PC PWU; FEMA; Bonney Lake (Planning and Community Development) 5. Timeline = Ongoing
APPENDIX F-4 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 224 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM 6. Benefit = City-wide and regional 7. Life of Measure = Life of Flood Insurance Study 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community.
Status Update: 2020 – 2025 Edition
Complete Ongoing Partially Complete Deferred X Comments New FEMA flood maps were issued on March 7, 2017 and the City of Bonney Lake adopted the current flood maps.
Origin
Previous Plan Current Plan X
APPENDIX F-5 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 225 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM Endnotes
1 Hazard Codes: Where necessary, the specific hazards addressed are noted as follows: A: Avalanche EQ: Earthquake FL: Flood D: Drought T: Tsunami V (l or Volcanic (lahar or tephra-specific) t): SW: Severe Storm (wind-specific) LS: Landslide WUI: Wildland/Urban Interface Fire MM: Man-made to include terrorism Multiple hazards, including some man-made. Where only natural hazards are MH: addressed, it is noted.
1 While this Plan is strictly a Natural hazard mitigation plan, where a measure stems from a facility recommendation (Infrastructure Section) that deals specifically with terrorism, the mitigation strategy will use that analysis. Other measures, such as those that deal with multi-hazard community preparedness or recovery planning, mitigate man-made hazards and are noted as such. It is not the intent of this notation to imply that all measures were analyzed with regard to man-made hazards or that measures were identified with that in mind. Rather, the notation merely illustrates the potential on this template for the inclusion of man-made hazard analysis.
APPENDIX F-6 – REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020-2025 EDITION 226 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE ADDENDUM
Public Safety Committee December 8, 2020 Regular Scheduled Meeting DRAFTED MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 3:39 P.M.
Elected Officials: Anticipated Staff: Councilmember Terry Carter (Chair) Police Chief, Bryan Jeter Councilmember J. Kelly McClimans Fire Chief Bud Backer Councilmember Todd Dole City Administrator, John Vodopich Management Analyst/Executive Assistant, Leslie Harris Administrative Assistant III, Debbie McDonald
I. ROLL CALL:
Councilmember Carter delivered roll call.
II. REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS:
East Pierce Fire and Rescue Monthly Report - Bud Backer, Fire Chief
Fire Chief Backer discussed his monthly report. The response time is off because of the Sumner Grade Fire. Last couple of weeks call volumes have really gone down and could be down 1,000 calls by the end of the year. Had 7 positive cases of COVID last month. Had to put 30 people in isolation until test results comeback, lost 25% of his personnel.
Future Leadership of East Pierce Fire & Rescue - Bud Backer, Fire Chief
Fire Chief Backer advised the Committee his plans to retire in June 2021. Deputy Fire Chief Jon Parkinson will be the next Fire Chief. They will work on filling the Deputy Fire Chief position.
Councilmember Carter congratulated the Chief on his retirement.
Public Safety Monthly Report - Bryan Jeter, Police Chief
Police Chief Jeter discussed his activity report, they had a DUI in front of the Hungry Dog Café. There has been a lot of unwanted people around the Safeway Fred Meyer area and back in the forest. Did a sweep of the forest, with three people given no trespass warnings. Did have 2 people take the offer for help.
City of Bonney Lake P.O. Box 7380 18421 Veterans Memorial Drive E 253.862.8602 Fax: 253.862.8538 Bonney Lake, WA 98391-0944
Page 1 of 3
227 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2020
View by Vintage has had many calls, not any huge problems but they are not the property's private Police Department they have the rest of the City to cover. Did talk with the managers about the calls and they are doing what they can to lower the call volume. Overall could be down about 3,000 calls from last year.
Councilmember Dole was surprised with the car thief numbers.
Police Chief Jeter responded the numbers have been going down in car thieves, but have recovered cars that are being left in our City.
Councilmember McClimans asked how staff was doing.
Police Chief Jeter responded they are tired and brought up the outbreak over at the Fire Department and how easy it can spread. Will be conducting Sargent testing, have not held testing in the last seven years. Assistant Police Chief Alfano will be leaving and moving in to be the Chief of Police for Buckley. This will be big shoes to fill, but we are very proud of him.
Councilmember Dole asked if there would be any candidates internal to fill the Assistant Police Chief's vacancy.
Police Chief Jeter responded there are a few that are interested in the position.
III. BUSINESS/ACTION ITEMS:
Approval of Meeting Notes: October 13, 2020 - Debbie McDonald Administrative Specialist III
MINUTES APPROVED
IV. OPEN COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Councilmember McClimans would like to look at putting together an analysis for a cost of a jail and understands it would be a huge endeavor to undertake.
Councilmember Carter asked City Administrator Vodopich what would be the first step in the process.
City Administrator Vodopich replied the City would need to do a feasibility study.
Police Chief Jeter responded he thinks the cost for a study would be about $50,000.00. He would like to stay in the same location and add a jail. The City owns a lot of the parcels around the station, so they can expand the foot print.
Councilmember Dole asked if Police Chief Jeter was interested in getting a jail.
Page 2 of 3
228 CITY OF BONNEY LAKE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2020
Police Chief Jeter commented it is easier to be a customer in the jail business then running one.
Councilmember Carter doesn’t mind waiting on doing the study, but still should have one done so we have all the information we need to make a good decision. Would need money in the budget to do a jail analysis.
City Administrator Vodopich responded will need to start with seeing how much the cost would be to do a study to know how much to budget for. This could be something we have an estimate for the first quarter of 2021 sometime in March.
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 4:28
______Debbie McDonald, Public Safety Clerk
Page 3 of 3
229