Resolution No. 21-08

A Resolution of the City of Chewelah Declaring City Support of and Adopting the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019 Update)

Whereas, the City of Chewelah supports the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; and

Whereas, the City has participated in the development of the Stevens County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan; and

Whereas, the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan will be utilized as a guide for planning as related to FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and other purposes as deemed appropriate.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chewelah, WA resolves that the City does hereby adopt, support, and will facilitate the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan’s implementation as deemed appropriate.

Adopted this 7th day of July 2021.

______Mayor Dorothy L. Knauss

______Authenticate: Clerk/Treasurer Pamela McCart

STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2019

UPDATE

Prepared By Northwest Management, Inc. 2 Foreword “Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Mitigation activities may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident. However, it has been demonstrated that hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive, comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs.”1

The previous version of the Stevens County, Washington Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed in 2008 by the Stevens County MHMP planning Team in cooperation with Northwest Management, Inc. of Moscow, Idaho (NMI). The 2019 update process was also conducted by NMI in collaboration with Stevens County Emergency Management and the Planning Team. The updated document is now referred to as the Stevens County, Washington Hazard Mitigation Plan and includes the Community Wildfire Protection Plan update.

This Plan satisfies the requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan and a flood mitigation plan under 44 CFR Part 201.6 and 79.6.

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008.

3

This page will house the FEMA plan approval letter once this plan is approved

4

This page was intentionally left blank.

5 Contents Foreword ...... 3 Section 1 – Introduction ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 Overview of this Plan and its Development ...... 7 Section 2 – Community Profile ...... 12 Stevens County Characteristics ...... 12 Jurisdictional Overviews ...... 21 Section 3 – Planning Process...... 34 Documenting the Planning Process ...... 34 Section 4 – Risk Assessment ...... 44 Hazard Summary ...... 44 Hazard Risk Profiles ...... 48 Section 5 – Mitigation Strategy ...... 96 Planning Philosophy and Goals ...... 96 Administration and Implementation of Action Items ...... 119 Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategies ...... 120 Section 6 – Plan Maintenance ...... 152 Plan Monitoring and Maintenance ...... 152 Mechanisms to Incorporate Mitigation Strategies ...... 153 Section 7 – Appendices...... 155 Supporting Information ...... 155 Memorandum of Agreement ...... 158 Record of Local Adoption ...... 162 Fire District/Agency Signatures ...... 163 Planning Team Minutes ...... 165 Record of Meeting Attendance ...... 175 Potential Funding Sources ...... 182

6 Section 1 – Introduction

Introduction This plan was prepared to guide hazard mitigation to better protect the people, property, community assets and land from the effects of natural hazards. This Plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from natural hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This Plan was also developed to make the participating communities eligible for certain types of Federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation grant funding.

Overview of this Plan and its Development This regional Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of analyses, professional cooperation and collaboration, assessments of hazard risks and other factors considered with the intent to reduce the potential for hazards to threaten people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems in Stevens County, Washington. The Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally approved by Washington Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in November 2008. This document serves as the required 5-year update of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program and will be in effect until 2023. This update will also include the County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan update as a chapter within the main document. This document assists with the identification and assessment of various potential hazards and helps maintain the County’s eligibility for grants and other funding. Stevens County Emergency Manager led the planning team throughout the update process. Agencies and organizations that participated in the planning process included: • Colville Police Department • Red Cross • Town of Marcus • Town of Clayton • City of Colville • City of Kettle Falls • City of Chewelah • Northeast Tri County Health District • Town of Springdale • Stevens County Public Works • Habitat for Humanity • Stevens County Sheriff’s Office • Stevens County Planning and Land Services • Stevens County Coroner • Stevens County Emergency Management • Stevens County Fire Districts • Stevens County Conservation District • Tri County Economic Development Council • Stevens County Board of County • Washington Military Department Commissioners Emergency Management Division • Washington State University Extension • Amateur Radio Emergency Services • Washington Department of Natural • US Border Patrol Resources • Providence Health Care • Northwest Management, Inc. • Spokane Tribe

7 In the winter of 2017, Stevens County Emergency Management contracted services to update the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to Northwest Management, Inc. of Moscow, Idaho.

Goals and Guiding Principles

Federal Emergency Management Agency Philosophy

Effective November 1, 2004, a Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is required for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) eligibility. The HMGP and PDM programs provide funding, through state emergency management agencies, to support local mitigation planning and projects to reduce potential disaster damages. The new local Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan requirements for HMGP and PDM eligibility are based on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which amended the Stafford Disaster Relief Act to promote an integrated, cost effective approach to mitigation. Local Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plans must meet the minimum requirements of the Stafford Act-Section 322, as outlined in the criteria contained in 44 CFR Part 201. The plan criteria cover the planning process, risk assessment, mitigation strategy, plan maintenance, and adoption requirements. To be eligible for project funds under the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, communities are required under 44 CFR Part 79.6(d)(1) to have a mitigation plan that addresses flood hazards. On October 31st, 2007, FEMA published amendments to the 44 CFR Part 201 at 72 Federal Reg. 61720 to incorporate mitigation planning requirements for the FMA program (44 CFR Part 201.6). The revised Local Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk (October 2011) used by FEMA to evaluate local hazard mitigation plans is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through July 1, 2008, was used as the official guide for development of a FEMA- compatible Stevens County, Washington Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2 FEMA will only review a local Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted through the appropriate State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO). Draft versions of local Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plans will not be reviewed by FEMA. FEMA will review the final version of a plan prior to local adoption to determine if the plan meets the criteria, but FEMA will be unable to approve it prior to adoption. In Washington, the SHMO is: Tim Cook Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division 1 Militia Drive, Bldg 1 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5000 A FEMA designed plan will be evaluated on its adherence to a variety of criteria, including:

2 Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008.

8 • Adoption by the Local Governing Body • Multi-jurisdictional Plan Adoption • Multi-jurisdictional Planning Participation • Documentation of Planning Process • Identifying Hazards • Profiling Hazard Events • Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets • Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses • Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends • Multi-jurisdictional Risk Assessment • Local Hazard Mitigation Goals • Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures • Implementation of Mitigation Measures • Multi-jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy • Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan • Implementation Through Existing Programs • Continued Public Involvement

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Since 1984, wildland fires have burned an average of more than 4,100 homes each year in the United States and, because more people are moving into fire-prone areas bordering wildlands, the number of homes at risk is likely to grow. The primary responsibility for ensuring that preventative steps are taken to protect homes lies with homeowners. Only about 9% of total wildfire costs are dedicated to the suppression activities (8% federal and 1% state) while home and property losses account for over 20%. Figure 1.1. Wildfire impacts as a proportion of total wildfire costs.3

3 Headwaters Economics. The Full Community Costs of Wildfire. 2018. Available online at: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/homes-risk/full-community-costs-of-wildfire. Accessed March 2019.

9 GAO was asked to assess, among other issues, (1) measures that can help protect structures from wildland fires, (2) factors affecting use of protective measures, and (3) the role technology plays in improving firefighting agencies’ ability to communicate during wildland fires. The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland fires are: (1) creating and maintaining a buffer, called defensible space, from 30 to 100 feet wide around a structure, where flammable vegetation and other objects are reduced; and (2) using fire-resistant roofs and vents. In addition to roofs and vents, other technologies – such as fire-resistant windows and building materials, surface treatments, sprinklers, and geographic information systems mapping – can help in protecting structures and communities, but they play a secondary role. Although protective measures are available, many property owners have not adopted them because of the time or expense involved, competing concerns such as aesthetics or privacy, misperceptions about wildland fire risks, and lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for fire protection. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as other organizations, are attempting to increase property owners’ use of protective measures through education, direct monetary assistance, and laws requiring such measures. In addition, some insurance companies have begun to direct property owners in high risk areas to take protective steps4.

State and Federal CWPP Guidelines

This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan update includes compatibility with Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements for a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, while also adhering to the guidelines proposed in the National Fire Plan, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). This Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared in compliance with:

• The National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (December 2006). • Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). • National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (March 2011). The Cohesive Strategy is a collaborative process with active involvement of all levels of government and non-governmental organizations, as well as the public, to seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire management issues. • The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Region 10 guidelines for a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as defined in 44 CFR parts 201 and 206, and as related to a fire mitigation plan chapter of a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. • National Association of State Foresters – guidance on identification and prioritizing of treatments between communities (2003).

Update and Review Guidelines5 ▪ Deadlines and Requirements for Regular Plan Reviews and Updates: In order to apply for a FEMA PDM project grant, Tribal and local governments must have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan.

4 United States Government Accountability Office. Technology Assessment – Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-05-380. April 2005. 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Original Release March, 2004 With revisions November, 2006, June, 2007 & January 2008.

10 Tribal and local governments must have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan in order to receive HMGP project funding for disasters declared on or after November 1, 2004. States and Tribes must have a FEMA-approved Standard or Enhanced Mitigation Plan in order to receive non- emergency Stafford Act assistance (i.e., Public Assistance categories C-G, HMGP, and Fire Management Assistance Grants) for disasters declared on or after November 1, 2004. State mitigation plans must be reviewed and reapproved by FEMA every three years. Local Mitigation Plans must be reviewed and reapproved by FEMA every five years. ▪ Plan updates. In addition to the timelines referenced above, the Rule includes the following paragraphs that pertain directly to the update of State and local plans, ✓ §201.3(b)(5) [FEMA Responsibilities] Conduct reviews, at least once every three years, of State mitigation activities, plans, and programs to ensure that mitigation commitments are fulfilled…. ✓ §201.4(d) Review and updates. [State] Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and resubmitted for approval…every three years. ✓ §201.6(d) [Local] plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years to continue to be eligible for project grant funding.

Plan updates must demonstrate that progress has been made in the past five years (for local plans), to fulfill commitments outlined in the previously approved plan. This will involve a comprehensive review and evaluation of each section of the plan and a discussion of the results of evaluation and monitoring activities detailed in the Plan Maintenance section of the previously approved plan. FEMA will leave to State discretion, consistent with this plan update guidance, the documentation of progress made. Plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan or may involve a major plan rewrite. In any case, a plan update is NOT an annex to the previously approved plan; it must stand on its own as a complete and current plan. The objective of combining these complementary guidelines is to facilitate an integrated wildland fire risk assessment, identify pre-hazard mitigation activities, and prioritize activities and efforts to achieve the protection of people, structures, the environment, and significant infrastructure in Stevens County while facilitating new opportunities for pre-disaster mitigation funding and cooperation.

11 Section 2 – Community Profile

Stevens County Characteristics Adapted from the Stevens County Comprehensive Land Use Plan of July 2006 and the official Stevens County, Washington website. The following information also describes the jurisdictions of Stevens County Conservation District and Northeast Tri County Health District, which are both adopting jurisdictions of this plan. Stevens County was named for Washington's first territorial governor, Isaac I. Stevens. When the new Washington territory was formed on March 2, 1853, Stevens applied to President Pierce for the governorship. Pierce selected Stevens for the post which carried with it the title of Superintendent of Indian Affairs. The Stevens Territory represented an area covering what are now 13 counties in eastern Washington, all northern Idaho and much of western Montana. Before the advent of white settlement, Kettle Falls on the Columbia River was a gathering place for 14 tribes that fished there for salmon. In 1811, white explorers embarked downriver from Kettle Falls to what became the Fort Colville trading post. Established in 1825, it was the principal outpost for Hudson's Bay Company operations stretching from the Mississippi River to the Cascade Mountains. Stevens County is large in area (5th largest in Washington) and in the middle one-third in population size. Its low population density (16 people per square mile) is widely dispersed with almost 77% living in unincorporated areas. About 40% of the total land area is owned by the federal government, state government, or the Spokane Tribe. There are six incorporated cities and twenty developed places, which provide a wide range of retail, commercial, and community services to the surrounding population. These vary in size and may appear as either rural or urban/suburban in character. Some are small rural villages with homes, a general store, gas station/auto repair, and meeting facility, while others are large suburban subdivisions with commercial areas.

Description of the Region

Stevens County is in northeastern Washington, with the Columbia River/Lake Roosevelt comprises much of the western boundary. The Columbia River enters Stevens County from Canada northeast of the city of Northport and travels southwest towards the town of Marcus where it becomes Lake Roosevelt. The Kettle River enters the County in the northwest corner near the community of Laurier, WA and travels south along the western border of Stevens County. The Kettle River converges with the Columbia River near the city of Kettle Falls. The Colville River begins near the city of Springdale in the southern portion of the County. From there, it courses north through the community of Valley and cities of Chewelah and Colville before converging with the Columbia River near Kettle Falls. The Spokane River comprises the southern boundary of Stevens County, and the Spokane Indian Reservation, which converges with the Columbia River near the community of Fort Spokane.

12 Elevations range from less than 1,300 feet above sea level at the confluence of the Spokane and Columbia Rivers to over 7,300 feet at Abercrombie Mountain in the northeast region of the County. Ownership is mixed between federal (mainly US Forest Service), state and private owners.

Table 2.1. Land Ownership Categories in Stevens County. Entity Acres Percent of Total Area Private 1,007,994 62% US Forest Service 219,283 13% WA Department of Natural Resources 159,775 10% Spokane Tribe of Indians 155,482 10% US Fish & Wildlife Service 40,604 3% US Bureau of Land Management 23,312 1% Water 10,518 <1% National Park Service 7,084 <1% WA State Parks 166 <1% Undetermined 102 <1% WA Department of Fish and Wildlife 25 <1%

Transportation & Infrastructure

The transportation system within the County is comprised of a significant number of roads, several airports, a rail line and an extensive trail system. The road system is comprised of state highways, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) roads, County roads, USFS or BIA roads, and private roads. Roads are important in hazard mitigation planning because they provide a means of escape and emergency access. Almost all the roads in the County were originally built to facilitate logging and farming activities. As such, these roads can support the emergency response equipment referenced in this document. However, many of the new roads have been built for home site access, especially for new subdivisions. In many cases, these roads are adequate to facilitate emergency response equipment as they adhere to County road standards. Nevertheless, construction of substandard access roads, particularly in subdivisions, can become a major safety issue and severely hinder the ability of emergency response personnel. Transportation networks in the County have been challenged because several communities have only one or two access points suitable for use during an emergency. The community of Northport is a prime example. Other communities that may be at risk because of limited access include Marble, Marcus, Tum Tum, Suncrest, and Wellpinit. Primary and secondary access routes were identified by Team members and amended by the public during public meetings. These routes identify the primary access into and out of the county that are relied on during emergencies. As such, they often receive prioritized treatment when allocating resources for hazard abatement. There are 284 miles of primary access routes identified in Stevens County. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad parallels Highway 395 (Clayton to Loon Lake), Highway 292 (Loon Lake to Springdale), and Highway 231 (Springdale to south of Chewelah), then rejoins Highway 395. Just south of Chewelah, the line becomes the Kettle Falls International Railroad and continues paralleling Highway

13 395 north to the Canadian border in Ferry County. An active rail line still parallels Highway 25 from Kettle Falls to Northport and the Canadian border. There are three public airports in Stevens County. The first is Sand Canyon Airport (single asphalt runway) located near Chewelah; the second is Colville Municipal Airport (single asphalt runway) located in Colville; and the third is Cross Winds Airport (two turf runways) located near Clayton. Additionally, there are several private airfields scattered throughout the county. Stevens County has both significant infrastructure and unique ecosystems within its boundaries. Of note for this Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan is the existence of US 395, State Routes 231, 292, and 25, and the presence of power lines supplying communities in Stevens County.

Demographics and Socioeconomics

Table 3.1 shows historical changes in population in Stevens County and among the various communities within the County.

Table 2.2. Historical and Current Population by Community. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Stevens County 17,405 28,979 30,948 40,066 43,531 Colville 3,742 4,510 4,360 4,988 4,673 Chewelah 1,365 1,888 1,945 2,186 2,607 Kettle Falls 893 1,807 1,272 1,527 1,595 Marcus 142 174 135 117 183 The 2010 Census reported that ethnicity in Stevens County is comprised of 89.4% white, 3.5% Hispanic or Latino, 5.8% American Indian, 0.9% Asian, and 0.6% African American. Approximately 50% of residents are female. There are 16,057 occupied housing units (75.9% of available housing units) in Stevens County.6

Development Trends

The following section was taken from the 2018 - 2022 Tri-County Economic Development District (TEDD) Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy7. “Over the past 20 years, the economy has diversified from its dependence on resource extraction. This forced diversification has been the result of increasing service-providing jobs and increases in manufacturing of non- wood products (Stevens County Profile, ESD, September 2016). The closure of Hearth & Home Technologies is expected to negatively impact Stevens County. Approximately 100 employees will be affected from this closure significantly reducing the amount of non-wood manufacturing in Stevens County. Stevens County tends to have one of the highest unemployment rates as well as a lower labor force participation rate in the state. Over the last three years total employment in the county has increased modestly (Stevens County Profile, ESD, September 2016). Major industries within Stevens County include local government, elementary and secondary schools, general medical and surgical hospitals, warehouse clubs and supercenters. The county has become a regional hub for healthcare with the influx of older individuals. With an increase in

6 US Census Bureau. American FactFinder. Available online at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stevenscountywashington,US/PST045216. Accessed December, 2017. 7 2018 Tri-County Economic Development District Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Available online at: http://tricountyedd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CEDS-2018-2022_FINAL.pdf. Accessed December, 2017.

14 retirees into the region and changing demographics, total health care employment has grown. Budget reductions are likely to weaken some government employment. Any reduction will create noticeable employment headwinds in a county with 30 percent of its jobs in government. A little-known community, Suncrest, is a small unincorporated community in Stevens County, about 9.7 miles northwest of the city of Spokane, of which it is a suburb. The community, unlike the remainder of the county has experienced rapid growth during the 2000s due to new "gated community" style development with large lot sizes and its proximity to the area's rural recreational opportunities.” The Tri-County area telecommunications infrastructure continues to be developed, improved and extended. Digital switches, fiber and redundancy are in place throughout the population centers in Newport and Colville. However, the infrastructure is lacking in the more rural areas, especially those in Stevens County. Advancement of telecommunications infrastructure is a high priority for the entire region and TEDD has been supportive of on-going efforts, including partnering with Broadband Action Team (BAT) that is investigating and pursuing mechanisms for all stakeholders to pool resources and to work in tandem to increase broadband awareness, access and adoption. As a sub-participant of BTOP round II funding, Stevens County PUD through NoaNet will help strengthen the public safety infrastructure, school systems, libraries, and provide open access to affordable high-speed Internet access to small and medium sized businesses.” Figure 2.1. Residential Building Permits.

Geography and Climate

Forested highlands, shrub covered hills, and valleys with fertile farmlands comprise Stevens County, which is located north of Spokane along the Canadian border in the east-central part of Washington. Much of Stevens County’s western edge borders Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area which is a roughly 130-mile-long

15 reservoir between Grand Coulee Dam and Northport, Washington. The western and eastern half of the County is comprised of rugged, mountainous terrain, much of which is within the Colville National Forest. A prominent valley separates the western and eastern half of the County. This valley contains the Counties primary travel corridor (HWY-395) as well as most of the County’s population. In addition, this area is home to much of the agriculture (farming and ranching) that occurs within the County. The Cascade Mountains of western Washington provide a barrier that impedes the normal movement of the moisture laden air masses from the Pacific Ocean, however Stevens County does not necessarily lie within the rain shadow of these mountains. Most of the total annual precipitation is attributed to storms rotating around a center of low atmospheric pressure traveling on an easterly course. Average annual precipitation received by Stevens County ranges from just over 20 inches in Northport and Chewelah. 8 The greatest amount of precipitation is received in the months of May, June and from November and January. The summer months usually see about one inch of rain per month or less. The average annual snowfall can range from 46 inches at Northport7 to 35 inches at Chewelah7 and an average of 165 inches at 49 Degrees North9 east of Chewelah. The average summertime temperature varies from 83.5 degrees Fahrenheit at Northport to 80.5 degrees Fahrenheit at Chewelah.7 The average low wintertime temperature varies from 24.7 degrees Fahrenheit at Northport and 19.7 degrees Fahrenheit at Chewelah.7

Natural Resources

Stevens County is a diverse ecosystem with a complex array of vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries that have developed with, and adapted to fire as a natural disturbance process. Nearly a century of wildland fire suppression coupled with past land-use practices (primarily timber harvesting, agriculture, and mining) has altered plant community succession and has resulted in dramatic shifts in the fire regimes and species composition. As a result, some forests in Stevens County have become more susceptible to large-scale, high- intensity fires posing a threat to life, property, and natural resources including wildlife and plant populations. High-intensity, stand-replacing fires have the potential to seriously damage soils, native vegetation, and fish and wildlife populations. In addition, an increase in the number of large, high-intensity fires throughout the nation’s forest and rangelands has resulted in significant safety risks to firefighters and higher costs for fire suppression.

Fish and Wildlife

Stevens County is home to a diverse array of fish and wildlife species. Stevens County streams provide habitat for trout, salmon, sturgeon, bass, catfish, crappie, perch, and pike, including populations that are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Forestlands and interface areas are important habitat for many species of birds and mammals.

8 U.S. climate data. Available online at https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/northport/washington/united- states/uswa0308. Accessed December, 2017. 9 49 Degrees North website. Available at https://www.onthesnow.com/washington/49-degrees-north/historical- snowfall.html?y=0. Accessed December 2017.

16 Vegetation

Vegetation in Stevens County is a mix of forestland and rangeland ecosystems. An evaluation of satellite imagery of the region provides some insight to the composition of the forest vegetation of the area. The full extent of the county was evaluated for cover type as determined from Landsat 7 ETM+ imagery in tabular format and is presented in Table 2.3. The most represented vegetated cover type is conifer dominated forests at approximately 73% of the total area. The next most common vegetation cover type represented is perennial grass slopes at 10%. Shrublands are the third most common cover type at 5% closely followed by agriculture, exotics, and areas that are sparsely covered with vegetation (4%, 3%, and 3% respectively). None of the remaining ground cover types total more than 1% in any one category (Table 3.3).

Table 2.3. Vegetative Cover Types in Stevens County. Land Cover Acres Percent of Total Area Conifer 3,948,497 73% Grassland 536,046 10% Shrubland 276,422 5% Agriculture 198,950 4% Exotic Herbaceous 166,132 3% Sparsely Vegetated 151,616 3% Riparian 80,675 1% Developed 50,324 1% Water 14,220 <1% Hardwood 11,384 <1% Barren 1,812 <1% Snow-Ice 1,091 <1% Conifer-Hardwood 382 <1% Total 5,437,552 100% Vegetative communities within the county follow the strong moisture and temperature gradient related to the major river drainages. Limited precipitation and steep slopes result in a relatively arid environment in the southern portion of the county, limiting vegetation to drought-tolerant plant communities of grass and shrub lands, with forests of mixed pine and fir occurring at the higher elevations in the north end of the county. As moisture availability increases, so does the abundance of conifer species, with subalpine forest communities present in the highest elevations where precipitation and elevation provide more available moisture during the growing season.

Hydrology

The Washington Department of Ecology & Water Resources Program is charged with the development of the Washington State Water Plan. Included in the State Water Plan are the statewide water policy plan, and component basin and water body plans which cover specific geographic areas of the state (WDOE 2005). The Washington Department of Ecology has prepared General Lithologies of the Major Ground Water Flow Systems in Washington. The state may assign or designate beneficial uses for Washington water bodies to support. These beneficial uses are identified in section WAC 173-201A-200 of the Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (WQS). These uses include:

17 • Aquatic Life Support: cold water biota, seasonal cold-water biota, and warm water biota; • Contact Recreation: primary (swimming) and secondary (boating); • Water Supply: domestic, agricultural, and industrial; and • Wildlife Habitat and Aesthetics While there may be competing beneficial uses in streams, federal law requires to protect the most sensitive of these beneficial uses. The geology and soils of this region lead to rapid to moderate moisture infiltration. Slopes are moderate to steep, however, headwater characteristics of this watershed lead to a high degree of infiltration as opposed to a propensity for overland flow. Thus, sediment delivery efficiency of first and third order streams is fairly low. The bedrock is typically well fractured and moderately soft. This fracturing allows excessive soil moisture to rapidly infiltrate into the rock and thus surface runoff is rare. Natural mass stability hazards associated with slides are low. Natural sediment yields are low for these watersheds. However, disrupted vegetation patterns from logging (soil compaction) and wildland fire (especially hot fires that increase soil hydrophobic characteristics), can lead to increased surface runoff and debris flow to stream channels. Of critical importance to Stevens County will be the maintenance of the domestic watershed supplies in the Colville River Watershed (Watershed Resources Inventory Area 59), Upper Lake Roosevelt Watershed (Watershed Resources Inventory Area 61), and the Middle Lake Roosevelt Watershed (Watershed Resources Inventory Area 58).

Timberlands in the region have been extensively harvested for the past several decades, therefore altering riparian function by removing streamside shade and changing historic sediment deposition. Riparian function and channel characteristics have been altered by ranch and residential areas as well. The current conditions of wetlands and floodplains are variable because some wetlands and floodplains have been impacted by past management activities.

Air Quality

The primary means by which the protection and enhancement of air quality is accomplished is through implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards address six pollutants known to harm human health including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides.10 The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 and amended in 1977, is the primary legal authority governing air resource management. The Clean Air Act provides the principal framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality. Under the Clean Air Act, the Organization for Air Quality Protection Standards (OAQPS) is responsible for setting the NAAQS standards for pollutants which are considered harmful to people and the environment. OAQPS is also responsible for ensuring these air quality standards are met, or attained (in

10 USDA-Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2000. Incorporating Air Quality Effects of Wildland Fire Management into Forest Plan Revisions – A Desk Guide. April 2000. – Draft.

18 cooperation with state, Tribal, and local governments) through national standards and strategies to control pollutant emissions from automobiles, factories, and other sources.11 Smoke emissions from fires potentially affect an area and the airsheds that surround it. Climatic conditions affecting air quality in Washington are governed by a combination of factors. Large-scale influences include latitude, altitude, prevailing hemispheric wind patterns, and mountain barriers. At a smaller scale, topography and vegetation cover also affect air movement patterns. Locally adverse conditions can result from occasional wildland fires in the summer and fall, and prescribed fire and agricultural burning in the spring and fall. Washington Department of Ecology12 The Washington Department of Ecology Air Quality Program protects public health and the environment from pollutants caused by vehicles, outdoor and indoor burning, and industry. The DOE oversees permitting for non-forested (i.e. agriculture and rangeland) burning. Stevens County falls under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Regional Office (ERO). The ERO can be reached at: 509-329-3400. Washington State Smoke Management Plan13 The DNR, Department of Ecology (ECY), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), BLM, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), participating Indian nations, military installations (DOD), and small and large forest landowners have worked together to deal with the effect of outdoor burning on air. Protection of public health and preservation of the natural attractions of the state are high priorities and can be accomplished along with a limited, but necessary, outdoor burning program. Public health, public safety, and forest health can all be served through the application of the provisions of Washington State law and this plan, and with the willingness of those who do outdoor burning on forest lands to further reduce the negative effects of their burning. The Washington State Smoke Management Plan pertains to DNR-regulated silvicultural outdoor burning only and does not include agricultural outdoor burning or outdoor burning that occurs on improved property. Although the portion of total outdoor burning covered by this plan is less than 10 percent of the total air pollution in Washington, it remains a significant and visible source. The purpose of the Washington State Smoke Management Plan is to coordinate and facilitate the statewide regulation of prescribed outdoor burning on lands protected by the DNR and on unimproved, federally- managed forest lands and participating tribal lands. The plan is designed to meet the requirements of the Washington Clean Air Act. The plan provides regulatory direction, operating procedures, and advisory information regarding the management of smoke and fuels on the forest lands of Washington State. It applies to all persons, landowners, companies, state and federal land management agencies, and others who do outdoor burning

11 Louks, B. 2001. Air Quality PM 10 Air Quality Monitoring Point Source Emissions; Point site locations of DEQ/EPA Air monitoring locations with Monitoring type and Pollutant. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Feb. 2001. As GIS Data set. Boise, Idaho. 12 Washington Department of Ecology website http://www.ecy.wa.gov/air.html Accessed March 2014. 13 Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Smoke Management Plan 1993. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_burn_smptoc.pdf Accessed March 2014.

19 in Washington State on lands where the DNR provides fire protection, or where such burning occurs on federally-managed, unimproved forest lands and tribal lands of participating Indian nations in the state. The Smoke Management Plan does not apply to agricultural outdoor burning and open burning as defined by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-425-030 (1) and (2), nor to burning done "by rule" under WAC 332-24 or on non-forested wildlands (e.g., range lands). Additionally, the Federal Air Rules for Indian Reservations (FARR) in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is a set of air quality regulations established under the Clean Air Act. The FARR creates rules to manage activities that cause air pollution. The FARR applies to all residents (both tribal members and non-tribal members) and businesses located within the exterior boundaries of reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The ownership status of land on the reservation does not affect how the rules apply. The Rule for Forestry and Silvicultural Burning Permits sets up a permit program for forestry and silvicultural burning on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. People on the reservation who want to perform forestry and silvicultural burning will need to get a permit. Forestry and silvicultural burning is the burning of vegetation that comes from the growing and harvesting of trees and timber. This type of burning includes slash burning, burning for reducing fire hazards, and burning for managing the forest environment. Burning may also be performed to prevent disease, to control pests, and for forest reproduction.

20 Jurisdictional Overviews The following are brief overviews for each of the participating jurisdictions in the Plan.

Colville

“Colville, founded in 1890, developed a “civic plaza” (the only one known of its kind in the state of Washington), which includes the Stevens County Courthouse, Colville City Hall, Colville Public Library and Colville Post Office on four corners in the geographical center of the city.”14 The City of Colville is the largest city in the County and serves as the County Seat. “Colville is the County Seat of Stevens County, Washington which joins Ferry County and Pend Oreille County as northeast Washington. This area of Washington is called the Upper Highlands, with the rolling Selkirk Mountains running north-south. It is part of the northern Rocky Mountains. Two major rivers run north-south through this area: the Columbia River running south and the Pend Oreille River running north.”15 Colville is located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 395 and State Highway 20. Highway 395 runs north through the county from Spokane to Kettle Falls before crossing the Columbia River and continuing north along the western boundary of the county. State Highway 20 is the northernmost cross-state highway in Washington. Highway 25 makes the only other option for north/south travel through the county. “Colville sits in the Colville River Valley which flows into the Columbia River. The river valley's elevation is 1,584 feet. At the Colville Airport on the east side of town, the elevation is 1,856. The mountains surrounding town include Colville Mountain at 3,375 feet, Mingo Mountain at 5,534 feet, Dominion Mountain at 5,773 feet, and Gillette Mountain at 5,557 feet elevation. As the crow flies, Colville is 30 miles south of British Columbia, Canada and 40 miles west of the Idaho State line. Traveling roads that must go through passes in these areas takes longer. Colville experiences four seasons of weather. With the mountains being a big influence, along with the Pacific Ocean 315 miles to the west, winters are snowy and wet. Sometimes it snows and rains the same day. Spring is beautiful with longer days and cool rain. Summers are dry and warm. A great feature of summer is that the evenings are still quite cool, often near 55 degrees, making sleeping great. The daylight runs from 5 am to 10 pm in June.”15

Development Trends

The City of Colville has recently identified more than 3,500 acres around the current city limits as ‘urban growth’ area. Figure 2.1 shows the boundary of the urban growth designation (green dash line). The Stevens County Ambulance Building has been identified as a critical facility because it will be developed into an Emergency Operations Center for use during an emergency.

14 Stevens County Rec Guide, 2011. Available online at http://www.colville.com/pdf/SCRecGuide2011.pdf. February 2018. 15 Colville Chamber of Commerce website. http://www.colville.com/default.asp. February 2018.

21 Figure 2.2. City of Colville Zoning Map.

22 Figure 2.3 City of Colville Location.

Kettle Falls

The original Kettle Falls was officially incorporated on December 17, 1891 on the bank of the Columbia River. After the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in 1940, the original town site was flooded. City planners relocated the town upslope and consumed a community called Meyers Falls, near the railroad lines, helping to ensure the town’s success as a trans-shipment point for the logging, agriculture, and paper industries. This is its present location, eight miles northwest of Colville and roughly 80 miles northwest of Spokane. Kettle Falls is now located eight miles northwest of Colville and roughly 80 miles northwest of Spokane. Kettle Falls is located along the banks of Lake Roosevelt at the intersection of U.S. Highway 395 and State Highway

23 25. The city is at an elevation of roughly 1,630 feet. Boise Cascade has two mills in Kettle Falls and Avista Utilities has a generating plant. The “kettles” of Kettle Falls are now under the water of Lake Roosevelt. The climate of Kettle Falls is like Colville and Stevens County as a whole.

Development Trends

Kettle Falls remains in a relatively steady state of population within the city limits. Most of the growth in this area occurs outside the city limits. Figure 2.4 City of Kettle Falls Location.

24 Chewelah

Chewelah was incorporated in February 1903. Chewelah was initially a typical pioneering settlement with agriculture being the primary industry and mining occurring on the periphery. By 1884 Chewelah was known as a rough and tumble mining town. There were many successful copper, silver, lead and some gold mines. The most successful ore that was mined in Chewelah was magnesite which is a mineral commonly used for making bricks and furnace linings. Magnesite was also important component for making steel during World War I. During the war, Chewelah’s magnesite plant was said to be the largest producer in the County. Chewelah is at an elevation of 1,670 feet and is in the Colville River valley. Chewelah is located 48 miles north of Spokane along Highway 395 which is the primary route through the city. The Flowery Trail is an alternate route out of the city that travels east over the mountains and into Pend Oreille County. Chewelah consists of two parts, Chewelah North and Chewelah South, separated by 3 miles of County. Chewelah has an airport located in Chewelah north. The climate of Chewelah is like weather in Colville and Stevens County as a whole.

Development Trends

In 2015, Chewelah City Council adopted Ordinance 887 which updated city zoning. This update identified several areas for growth around the perimeter of the existing city limits. These urban growth areas are zoned for retail business or single-family residence. There is also an area northwest of the main city limits that is also considered part of Chewelah and continues to see residential development occurring.

25 Figure 2.5. City of Chewelah Zoning Map.

26 Figure 2.6 City of Chewelah Location.

Springdale

Springdale was originally called Squire City after Charles O. Squire, who erected a sawmill in 1887, when he platted the community in November 1889. Shortly after being platted, the Spokane Falls and Northern Railroad was completed to the area and the depot was called Springdale. By 1892, the community was renamed Springdale and became officially incorporated in February 1903. The entire business district of Springdale was destroyed by fire in July 1908. The business district was rebuilt however it is unknown if the fire had an impact on type of construction material used to rebuild.

27 Springdale is in southeast Stevens County at the intersection of State Highways 292 and 231. The elevation of Springdale is just over 2,000 feet. The climate of Springdale is like weather in Colville and Stevens County as a whole, with only slightly warmer conditions.

Development Trends

The Town of Springdale remains in a relatively steady state of population within the city limits. Most of the growth in this area occurs outside the town limits. Figure 2.7 City of Springdale Location.

28 Marcus

Marcus was established as a supply point and transportation base for northbound travelers during the gold rush of the 1860s. The location was important because it marked the northern terminus because of the Kettle Falls which acted as a barrier for river navigation. Marcus was officially incorporated in October 1910. The original townsite, like many others located in this corridor, was inundated with water once the Grand Coulee Dam was built. Marcus is in northwest Stevens County along State Highway 25. The town is situated on the eastern shoreline of the Columbia River at an elevation of 1,400 feet. The climate of Marcus is like weather in Colville and Stevens County as a whole.

Development Trends

The Town of Marcus remains in a relatively steady state of population within the city limits. Most of the growth in this area occurs outside the town limits. Figure 2.8 City of Marcus Location.

29 Northport

Northport began in the 1880s as a port and shipbuilding center for steamboat services running north into British Columbia during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Northport was officially incorporated June 1898 and acquired its name from its location along the Spokane Falls and Northern Railway. State Highway 25 passes through town before crossing the Columbia River and travelling northwest and entering Canada and becoming Highway 22. Alternate access routes include; Northport Flat Creek Road opposite the river from Northport, Aladdin Road which cuts through the mountains in the Deep Creek valley and connects Northport with Colville, and the Northport Waneta Road which follows the eastern shore of the Columbia River then becomes Deep Lake Boundary Road at the US/Canada border before turning south and ultimately connecting with Aladdin Road several miles southeast of Northport. Northport sits and approximately 1,360 feet in elevation and experiences a similar climate to Colville and Stevens County as a whole, with only slightly cooler temperatures.

Development Trends

The Town of Northport remains in a relatively steady state of population within the city limits. Most of the growth in this area occurs outside the town limits. Figure 2.9. City of Northport Location.

30 Stevens County Fire Protection District #1

Stevens Fire #1 protects 375 square miles. It includes the communities of Lake Spokane (Suncrest to Tum Tum), Ford, Twin Mountain, Clayton, Loon Lake, Deer Lake and the City of Springdale (annexed into the district in 1994). The district has eight engines (plus one reserve), ten brush/medical response vehicles, seven tenders, one quick attack and six staff vehicles, two jeep plows and one support unit. The district has a career staff consisting of a chief, operations captain, two lieutenants (EMS, Public Education and Prevention), and three firefighters. This staff supports the sixty volunteer EMT/firefighters. Approximately 59 percent of the district’s firefighters are EMT, 5 percent are only EMTs and 28 percent only firefighters and 8 percent support. The district has eight stations and a district office in Clayton and a shop and one storage building. Over 60 percent of the assessed value of the district has hydrants but less than 70 percent of the land has a water source (hydrants). The district has mountains running through the middle of it with only 4-5 roads cutting through them. The population bases are Lake Spokane, Loon Lake and Deer Lake. The summer population is higher due to recreational opportunities within the District. The year-round population is over 12,000 residents. The district averages about 1,100 calls a year with about 70 percent of these being medical calls. The District has agreements with all other Stevens County Fire Districts and departments, all Spokane County Fire Districts and Departments, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), Lincoln Fire #4, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

Development Trends

Development continues to occur in fire-prone landscapes such as; communities in Homestead Canyon, Cummins Canyon, Limekiln area, Ford-Springdale, and between Suncrest to Tum Tum.

Stevens County Conservation District

The Stevens County Conservation District is a non-regulatory agency. The Conservation District’s goal is to develop and implement programs to protect and conserve soil, water, farmland, range land, forests, wildlife and other renewable resources throughout the district. The District provides technical and financial assistance to landowners within the district boundaries who have natural resource concerns or problems. It also provides educational assistance to schools and organizations within Stevens County. The District is governed by a board of five supervisors, who are all residents. Three supervisors are elected by residents within the District and two are appointed by the State Conservation Commission. The board may also include an unlimited number of associate members. All the members’ time and effort serving the District is on a volunteer basis.

Development Trends

The Conservation District boundary includes the entire County and therefore the development trend described for the County on pages 14 and 15 should be referred to here.

31 Northeast Tri-County Health District

Northeast Tri-County Health District covers the entire Stevens County, as well as, Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties. A variety of preventive services are provided to the residents of Ferry, Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties by public health staff. The programs and services are delivered by screening, intervention, education, preventive action and epidemiology or investigation activities. Other services are designed to prevent disease or illness from environmental sources such as food, water, solid waste, sewage and vectors. In addition to conducting routine inspections and issuing permits, staff also respond to complaints and provide technical assistance to residents in a variety of areas where environmental factors may affect the public.

Development Trends

Development within the Northeast Tri-County Health District’s jurisdiction is like the County as a whole (see County description). The trends of development in Stevens County has been remaining constant or contracting a bit in most of the County, however the community of Suncrest in southern Stevens County continues to grow due to its proximity to Spokane. The age demographic of Stevens County has been shifting to more of retirement age individuals as well. This could have an impact on how individuals are evacuated in the event of a disaster and/or those individuals needs for services if there was an extended power outage or if they were evacuated to a centralized shelter.

32 Figure 2.10 Map of Stevens County Fire Protection Districts.

33 Section 3 – Planning Process

Documenting the Planning Process Documentation of the planning process, including public involvement, is required to meet FEMA’s DMA 2000 (44CFR§201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1)) for an updated local mitigation plan. This section includes a description of the planning process used to update this plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how all the involved agencies participated.

The Planning Team

Stevens County Emergency Management, James Caruso, led the planning Team efforts. The Northwest Management, Inc. Project Manager was Brad Tucker. These individuals led a team of resource professionals that included county and city elected officials and staff, fire protection districts, law enforcement, hospital and public health districts. The Planning Team met with many residents of the County during the community risk assessments and at public meetings. Additionally, the press releases encouraged interested citizens to contact their county Emergency Management coordinator or attend Planning Team meetings to ensure that all issues, potential solutions, and ongoing efforts were thoroughly discussed and considered by the Team. When the public meetings were held, many of the Team members were in attendance and shared their support and experiences with the planning process and their interpretations of the results. The planning philosophy employed in this project included open and free sharing of information with interested parties. Information from federal and state agencies was integrated into the database of knowledge used in this project. Meetings with the Team were held throughout the planning process to facilitate a sharing of information between cooperators.

Description of the Planning Process

The Stevens County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a collaborative process involving all the organizations and agencies detailed in Section 1 of this document. The planning effort began by organizing and convening a countywide Planning Team. Stevens County utilized the CEMP Planning Team to begin the update process. Once the meetings began in December of 2017, the Team identified other individuals/agencies that should be invited to participate. James Caruso with Stevens County Emergency Manager invited representatives from the Forest Service and the Spokane Tribe to participate. The planning process included seven distinct phases which were in some cases sequential (step 1 then step 2) and in some cases intermixed (step 5 completed throughout the process):

1. Organization of Resources – Stevens County and NMI worked together to develop a comprehensive list of potential participants as well as a project timeline and work plan. The 2017-18 Planning Team served as the basis for identifying stakeholders; however, that list was expanded to provide a

34 comprehensive review and update of the risk assessments and mitigation strategies during the update process.

2. Collection of Data – NMI coordinated with the Planning Team to gather any new data and information about the extent and periodicity of hazards in Stevens County to ensure a robust dataset for making inferences about hazards.

3. Field Observations and Estimations – NMI and the Planning team developed risk models and identified problem areas to better understand risks, juxtaposition of structures and infrastructure to risk areas, access, and potential mitigation projects. Many of the analyses used in the 2017-18 plan were reviewed and updated to incorporate new hazard vulnerabilities or changes in development. Additionally, several new risk models and analyses were included in the 2019 update process to better represent actual conditions in Stevens County.

4. Mapping – NMI developed a comprehensive database and map files relevant to pre-disaster mitigation control and mitigation, structures, resource values, infrastructure, risk assessments, and other related data. All the maps and databases were updated as part of the 2019 plan update.

5. Public Involvement – NMI and Stevens County developed a plan to involve the public from the formation of the Planning Team to news releases, public meetings, public review of draft documents, and acknowledgement of the final updated plan by the signatory representatives.

6. Strategies and Prioritization – NMI and the Planning team representatives worked together to review the risk analyses and develop realistic mitigation strategies. As part of the 2019 plan update, a record of completed action items as well as a “2019 status” report of projects was included in the revised mitigation strategies for each jurisdiction.

7. Drafting of the Report – NMI drafted a final update report and worked with members of the Planning team to review each section, incorporate public comments, proceed with the state and federal review processes, and adopt the final document.

Multi-Jurisdictional Participation

CFR requirement §201.6(a)(4) calls for multi-jurisdictional planning in the development of Hazard Mitigation Plans that impact multiple jurisdictions. To be included as an adopting jurisdiction in the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan jurisdictions were required to sign a MOA and participate in at least four Planning Team meetings or meet with Planning Team leadership individually, provide a goals statement, submit at least one mitigation strategy, and adopt the final Plan by resolution.

35 The following is a list of jurisdictions representatives that signed the MOA (see Appendices) and that have met the requirements for an adopting jurisdiction. The Town of Northport hosted a public meeting at a town council meeting where they were provided an opportunity to comment on the plan (see page 40 & 41). Northport was also allowed to review the final draft of the plan. The participation by all these representatives and many others from these jurisdictions (see pages 44-45) satisfies FEMA requirements of an adopting jurisdiction and thereby are included in the Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan:

Stevens County Northeast Tri County Health District Stevens County Fire District #1 James Caruso Matt Schanz Mike Bucy Emergency Management Director Administrator President of Fire Chiefs Association [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Stevens County Conservation District City of Chewelah City of Colville Dean Hellie Dorothy Knauss Louis Janke Administrator Mayor Mayor [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] City of Kettle Falls Town of Springdale Town of Northport John Riddlington Elizabeth Calderwood Mike Lamb Mayor Mayor Mayor [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Town of Marcus Karyn Lyons Mayor 509-684-3771

Nine of these jurisdictions also participated in the 2008 Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Northeast Tri County Health District is a new adopting jurisdiction in this update. These jurisdictions were either represented on the Planning Team, at public meetings or reviewed their respective hazard profiles, risk assessments, and action plan. The monthly Planning Team meetings were the primary venue for authenticating the planning record. However, additional input was gathered from each jurisdiction in a combination of the following ways: • Planning Team leadership attended local government meetings where planning updates were provided and information was exchanged. Additionally, representatives on the Planning Team periodically attended city council meetings to provide municipality leadership with updates on the project and to request reviews of draft material. All the adopting jurisdictions maintained active participation in the monthly Planning Team meetings.

• One-on-one correspondence and discussions between the Planning Team leadership and the representatives of the municipalities and special districts was facilitated as needed to ensure understanding of the process, collect data and other information, and develop specific mitigation strategies. NMI representatives emailed and/or called each jurisdiction individually at least once during the planning process to answer questions and request additional information.

• Public meetings were hosted by the communities of (Colville, Chewelah, Northport and Suncrest). Each meeting involved elected officials, county and municipality representatives, local volunteers, and local citizenry were invited to attend.

36 • Written correspondence was provided at least monthly between the Planning Team leadership and each participating jurisdiction updating the cooperators on the document’s progress, making requests for information, and facilitating feedback. NMI representatives used an email distribution list of all the stakeholders to announce meetings, distribute meeting minutes, provide draft sections for review, and request information. All the participating jurisdictions provided comments to the draft document during the data gathering phase as well as during the various Team and public review processes.

• At the request of Planning Team leadership, several participating jurisdictions hosted copies of the draft Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Planning Team Meetings

Stevens County Emergency Management sent a formal invitation to prospective Team members inviting them to the initial project kickoff meeting. Additional members were invited individually as the Team identified them. The following list of people participated in at least one of the Planning Team meetings and volunteered time or responded to elements of the Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan’s preparation. A few participants served on the Team as dual representatives of more than one jurisdiction. Some of the participants were also part of the original 2008 Planning Team; however, the update process captured a wider variety of stakeholders than the original version of plan including the transportation department and health district representatives. A record of sign-in sheets is included in the Appendices.

Stevens County Participants: *Indicates Adopting Jurisdiction

Name, Representing Name, Representing *Dean Hellie, Stevens Co. Conservation District *John Kokinda, Town of Springdale Vaiden Bloch, Northwest Management Kinsey Koots, TEDD Pat Lowery, Resident (Deer Lake) Adam Cares, Stevens County Planning Ryan Power, WA Department of Natural Resources Adena Sabins, WSU Extension Jarett Cook, WA Department of Natural Resources *James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management *Lou Janke, City of Colville *Mike Bucy, Stevens Co Fire District #1 Robert Meshishneh, Colville Police Department Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Grant Peterson, Resident Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner Linda Peterson, Resident *Patrick Albee, Town of Springdale *Dorothy Knauss, City of Chewelah Jim Plamer, Resident Ed Dean, US Border Patrol Rich Bergstrom, Red Cross Ernest Huber, Emergency Operations Center Pete Hartmann, Spokane Armory *Fran Bolt, Town of Marcus *Nancy Foll, City of Colville Jason Hart, Stevens County Debra Hanover, WSU Extension *Kathy Folley, Town of Springdale *Dave Klimas, Stevens Co Fire District #12 Ian Pickett, Habitat for Humanity Jim Palmer, Resident Steve Harris, WA Department of Natural Resources Mike Blackmon, Amateur Radio Emergency Service Myron Boles, WA Department of Natural Resources *Matt Schanz, Northeast Tri County Health District

37 *Karen Loyds, Town of Marcus Lisa Maddock, Habitat for Humanity

Team Meeting Minutes

Planning Team meetings were held from December 2017 through October 2018. The minutes and attendance records for each Planning Team meeting are included in the Appendices.

Public Involvement

Public involvement in this plan was made a priority from the inception of the project. There were several ways that public involvement was sought and facilitated. In some cases, this led to members of the public providing information and seeking an active role in protecting their own homes and businesses, while in other cases it led to the public becoming more aware of the process without becoming directly involved in the planning.

News Releases

Under the auspices of the Stevens County Commissioners, periodic press releases were submitted to The Chewelah Independent, Statesman Examiner and the Deer Park Tribune. The first press release informed the public that the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan process was taking place, who was involved, why it was important to Stevens County, and who to contact for more information. The second press release was in the form of a flyer announcing the public meeting dates and venues, which was distributed to local businesses by Team members. The third press release provided information regarding the public comment period including where hardcopies of the draft could be viewed, the availability of the draft on the (website) and instructions on how to submit comments. A record of published articles regarding the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is included in the Appendices.

38 Figure 3.1. Press Release #1 – Planning Process Announcement.

Stevens County

Media Release

From: James Caruso, Stevens County Emergency Management

Date: February 1, 2018

RE: Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Stevens County Set to Update Hazard Risk Plans

Colville, Wa. Stevens County has launched a project to update the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This update will include an update of the Stevens County Community Wildfire Protection Plan as well. Local agencies and organizations in Stevens County have created a Team to complete the required 5-year updates of these documents as part of the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation program and National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The project is being funded through a grant from FEMA.

The planning update will include risk analyses, vulnerability assessments, and mitigation recommendations for the hazards of flood, landslide, earthquake, severe weather, wildland fire and others.

Stevens County has retained Northwest Management, Inc. to provide risk assessments, hazard mapping, field inspections, interviews, and to collaborate with the Planning Team to update the plan. The Team includes representatives from local communities/municipalities, Colville and Chewelah Police Departments, rural and wildland fire districts, Sheriff’s Department, Washington Department of Natural Resources, U.S Forest Service, public works, highway districts, private landowners, area businesses, various Stevens County departments, and others.

One of the goals of the planning process will be to increase the participating jurisdictions’ eligibility for additional grants that will help minimize the risk and potential impact of disaster events, thus making a more resilient county. The Planning team will be conducting public meetings to discuss preliminary findings and to seek public input on hazard mitigation recommendations. A notice of the dates and locations of these meetings will be posted in local newspapers. Once completed, the updated draft plan will also be available for public review and comment.

For more information on the Stevens County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan update, or if you would like to attend the meeting, contact James Caruso, Stevens County Emergency Management Director, at 509-684-7543.

Public Meetings

Public meetings were scheduled in a variety of communities during the hazard assessment phase of the planning process. Venues for meetings were chosen by the Planning Team and located in each geographical area to provide an adequate opportunity for members of every community to attend without considerable travel. Public meetings focused on sharing information regarding the planning process, presenting details of the hazard assessments, and discussing potential mitigation treatments. Attendees at the public meetings were asked to give their impressions of the accuracy of the information generated and provide their opinions of potential treatments. Public meetings were held from June thru August. The plan update was put on the agenda of the Colville, Chewelah and Northport City Council meetings. A short presentation or explanation was made during each

39 City Council meeting to several residents in attendance. Those in attendance, including City Council members, were updated on the status of the project and informed in how they can participate in the planning process. The meeting in Suncrest was a ‘stand-alone’ event and was attended by Fire District #1 Chief and a County Commissioner. No residents attended the Suncrest meeting. There were no questions or comments at any of the meetings. Although the opportunity to present to the City Councils and others in attendance at the City Council meetings ensures that we have people to present to, the format of the meeting did not lend itself to discussion or questions on the plan. The public meeting announcement was distributed throughout each community by Team members in the form of a flyer. A sample of the flyer is included below in Figure 2.2.

Figure 3.2. Press Release #2 - Public Meeting Flyer.

40 Public Comment Period

A public comment period was conducted from November 7th to November 21st, 2018 to allow members of the public an opportunity to view the full draft plan and submit comments and any other input to the Team for consideration. A press release was submitted to the local media outlets announcing the comment period, the location of plans for review, and instructions on how to submit comments. Hardcopy drafts were printed and made available at the public libraries in Northport, Chewelah and Loon Lake. Each hardcopy was accompanied by a letter of instruction for submitting comments to the Planning Team. The draft plan was also posted for public review at https://northwestmanagement.com/public-documents/. A record of published articles regarding the public comment period is included in the Appendices. There were no comments received from the public.

41 Figure 3.3. Press Release #3 – Public Comment Period.

Documented Review Process

Review and comment on this Plan has been provided through a number of avenues for the Team members as well as for members of the general public. A record of the document’s review process has been

42 established through email correspondence, press releases, published articles, meeting minutes, and meeting sign-in sheets. Proof of these activities is recorded in the Section 7 Appendices. During regularly scheduled Team meetings in 2017-18, the Team members met to discuss findings, review mapping and analysis, and provide written comments on draft sections of the document. During the public meetings attendees observed map analyses, photographic collections, discussed general findings from the community assessments, and made recommendations on potential project areas. Sections of the draft Plan were delivered to the Planning Team members during the regularly scheduled Team meetings. The completed first draft of the document was presented to the Team during the month of July for full Team review. The Team spent a couple of weeks proofreading and editing sections of the draft. Many jurisdictions met individually to review and revise their specific risk assessment and mitigation strategy including the prioritization of action items. Once the Team’s review was completed, the draft document was released for public review and comment. The public review period remained open from November 7th thru November 21st, 2018. There were no public comments received.

43 Section 4 – Risk Assessment

Hazard Summary The Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan is developed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Washington State Emergency Management Division for a county level pre-disaster mitigation plan. The State of Washington State identifies nine natural hazards and eight technological hazards affecting the State. To be consistent, the Planning Team chose seven natural and six anthropogenic annexes from the state identified natural hazards that pose the highest risk for Stevens County. The hazards addressed in this Plan are:

flood terrorism & civil unrest earthquake hazardous materials landslide extended power outage severe weather epidemic wildland fire infrastructure failure avalanche displaced population drought structure fire The five Additional hazard annexes may be added to this Plan as funding allows. The highest priority hazards to be considered for future evaluation are:

volcano pandemic erosion A hazard summary worksheet was facilitated with the county Planning Team to determine the relative frequency of a hazard’s occurrence and the potential impact a hazard event could have on people, property, infrastructure, and the economy based on local knowledge of past occurrences. The results of the hazard summary can be found in Table 4.1.

44 Figure 4.1. Hazard Summary Worksheet.

A scoring system (shown above) was used to categorize the geographic area affected (location), relative magnitude (max probable extent) and the probability of future events (frequency) that each hazard may have on a community. The categories were then given a numerical value and then totaled to show the overall significance ranking for each hazard.16 This process was conducted for each adopting jurisdiction.

16 Hazard Summary Worksheet. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook. 2013. Pp A-29, A-30.

45 The following table summarizes the results of the Hazard Summary exercise for Stevens County. Flooding, severe weather, landslides, earthquake, terrorism/civil unrest and wildland fires were considered key hazards affecting Stevens County in the 2008 plan. Landslide increased in frequency while severe weather and flood increased in magnitude in the 2019 update plan. Earthquake decreased in magnitude and avalanche was removed from the 2019 plan. Infrastructure failure, epidemic, drought, displaced population and hazardous materials spills are new hazards that have been ranked by the 2019 Team. Terrorism and civil unrest will be developed and contained in a separate document from the main plan. Extended power outage, hazardous materials spills, epidemic, displaced population, infrastructure failure, and structure fire will all be covered under the natural hazards sections.

Table 4.1 Stevens County Hazard Summary. Overall Max Probable Probability of Hazard Location Significance Extent Future Events Ranking Flood Significant (3) Severe (3) Highly Likely (4) High (10) Landslide Significant (3) Moderate (2) Highly Likely (4) High (9) Earthquake Negligible (1) Weak (1) Unlikely (1) Low (3) Severe Weather Extensive (4) Severe (3) Highly Likely (4) High (11) Wildland Fire Extensive (4) Extreme (4) Highly Likely (4) High (12) Avalanche Negligible (1) Weak (1) Unlikely (1) Low (3) Drought Significant (3) Moderate (2) Likely (3) Medium (8) Extended Power Outage Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) Epidemic Limited (2) Moderate (2) Occasional (2) Medium (6) HazMat Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) Displaced Population Negligible (1) Severe (3) Unlikely (1) Low (5) Infrastructure Failure Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) (communications) Terrorism Limited (2) Severe (3) Unlikely (1) Medium (6) Structure Fire Limited (2) Severe (3) Occasional (2) Medium (7)

46 Table 4.2 shows the totals (overall significance value) for each adopting jurisdiction within the plan. Red cells indicate a hazard that received the highest rankings of the worksheet.

Table 4.2 Overall Significance Summary.

#13

-

Northport

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Town

Fire District Fire #1

Town of Springdale Town NETri

Flood High Medium Low Low Low High Low Low Low

Landslide High Low Low Low High Medium Medium Medium

Earthquake Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Severe Weather High Medium High High Medium High High High High

Wildland Fire High High Medium Medium Low High High High High

Avalanche Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Drought Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Low Low Low

Extended Power Outage High High Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium

Epidemic Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

HazMat High Medium High Medium High High Medium Medium Medium

Displaced Population Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low

Communication Outage High Medium High High Medium High Medium Medium Medium

Terrorism Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low

Structure Fire Medium Low Medium Low High High Low Low Low

47 Hazard Risk Profiles

Flood

Description

The magnitude of most floods in Washington depend on the combinations of intensity and duration of rainfall, pre-existing soil conditions, area of a basin, elevation of the rain or snow level, and amount of snow pack. Man-made changes to a basin also can affect the size of floods. Although floods can happen at any time during the year, there are typical seasonal patterns for flooding in Washington State, based on the variety of natural processes that cause floods:

• Heavy rainfall on wet or frozen ground, before a snow pack has accumulated, typically cause fall and early winter floods • Rainfall combined with melting of the low elevation snow pack typically cause winter and early spring floods • Late spring floods in Eastern Washington result primarily from melting of the snow pack • Thunderstorms typically cause flash floods during the summer in eastern Washington; on rare occasions, thunderstorms embedded in winter-like rainstorms cause flash floods in western Washington The Columbia River forms much of the western border of the County; however, due to several downstream dams and the backwater storage of Lake Roosevelt, the Columbia River is not a significant risk of causing flood damage along the Stevens County shoreline. The Spokane River along much of Stevens County’s southern border also does not cause significant flood damage due to the regulation of water flow by dams. The Colville River comprises the major drainage system in the County forming the Colville Valley in which most of Stevens County’s population occurs. Numerous smaller tributaries empty into the Colville River beginning at its headwaters near Springdale and continuing north to its confluence with the Columbia River near Kettle Falls. Other significant drainages in the County include the Deep Creek drainage, the Chamokane Creek drainage, and Sheep Creek drainage.

Stevens County experiences all types of flooding, but riverine floods in several of the Colville River tributaries have the most prolonged impact on the County. Erosion and transported sediment are major secondary hazards of flooding. Erosion of stream channels leads to deposition of sediment in river and creek beds, decreasing their capacity to transport water. The intense runoff can strip away topsoil and deposit it elsewhere, usually where flow is impeded, such as bridge abutments and culverts, or where stream velocity slows as occurs throughout the Colville Valley. Much of the wide Colville Valley floor historically worked as a large wetlands area with frequent low velocity flood events. Hundreds of years of sediment deposit and channel migration has resulted in highly fertile soils, which originally attracted settlement. Now, many of these settlements such as Orin, Arden, Addy, and Valley are at risk to flood damage.

Flash flooding can and has occurred on smaller streams, particularly those in narrow canyons such as the Sheep Creek drainage. Severe flash flooding of the rivers and streams occur, by definition, very rapidly usually following a heavy rainfall event. Ice jams and plugged or undersized culverts can exacerbate the

48 impact of this type of flooding. Although infrequent, flash flooding typically causes more damage and loss of life than normal high-water events because they happen very quickly and often catch communities unprepared. Due to the high density of structures and; therefore, people in the 100-year floodplain, there is a high probability of significant damage and potential loss of life due to flash flooding.

Stevens County has been assessed by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. There are approximately 20,889 assessed buildings in Stevens County; 886 or about 4% of these (59,650 acres) are in the FEMA identified floodplain. A 100-year flood is calculated to be the maximum level of flood water expected to occur in a 100-year period. The 100-year flood is sometimes referred to as the 1% flood because there is a 1% chance of it occurring in any year. A 500-year flood has a 0.2% chance of occurring in any year.

These flood zone maps will serve as the basis for the analysis of assets of risk to flooding in Stevens County.

49 Figure 4.2 Stevens County Flood Map.

50 History

Some of the most serious floods on the Colville River occurred in 1904, 1956, and 1974. According to newspaper accounts, each of these floods caused the river to overflow its banks. The 1956 flood resulted from unseasonably warm temperatures which melted a heavy winter snowpack. Temperatures exceeded 65 degrees Fahrenheit for nearly one week and reached 81 degrees at the Colville Airport on April 23rd, 1956 (approximately a 50-year recurrence interval). The most severe flood recorded occurred in 1974 after temperatures climbed nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit from subzero levels and rain had fallen for about a week. The Colville River at Kettle Falls peaked at 3,440 cfs on January 23rd, 1974 (approximately an 80- year recurrence interval). Ice jams are reported to have formed on many of the Colville River tributaries.

March 2017 - Melting snow and heavy rains caused flooding in Stevens County. Flood waters caused Highway 395 to close between mileposts 231 and 233 north of Colville. Governor Jay Inslee declared a State of Emergency for the region. A fire station in Hunters was flooded and fire equipment had to be moved to higher ground. Many other areas were affected by rising waters such as the city park in Chewelah. Habitat for Humanity, Fire Protection Districts and local students helped fill and place sandbags to residents whose homes were threatened by water.

November 2015- Federal Disaster #4249. On January 15, 2016, President Obama declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Washington. This declaration made Public Assistance requested by the Governor available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides in Chelan, Clallam, Garfield, Island, Jefferson, Kittitas, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Pend Oreille, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman Counties. This declaration also made Hazard Mitigation Grant Program assistance requested by the Governor available for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

Only unincorporated portions of the County have experienced direct effects from flooding in Stevens County. Although the cities and towns have been impacted indirectly, there have been no floods within the boundaries of any of the towns or cities.

Probability and Magnitude

For the purposes of this Plan, the probability and magnitude of flood hazards in Stevens County jurisdictions are based on the 100-year flood or 1% probability floodplains delineated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), plus any provisional floodplains delineations used for in-house purposes by participating jurisdictions. FEMA has not updated the FIRM maps in Stevens County since 2006.

51 Vulnerability

Table 4.3 Overall Flood Significance Summary.

Springdale

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Northport Town

Town of Town

ConservationDistrict NETri

Flood High Medium Low Low High Low High Low Low Low

52 Vulnerability - Loss Estimations The building values were determined using the County’s parcel database. According to this data set, there are 1,083 parcels with assessed building values in the Stevens County floodplain. Within these parcels there are approximately 888 buildings equating to a total value of $70,568,433. However, none of these parcels have been identified as repetitive loss properties in the County.

There are currently 29 municipal water facilities in the FEMA identified floodplain of Stevens County, 10 of which are associated with Colville. The KCVL communications tower as well as several sections of BPA powerlines and various roadways are also within the county floodplain. Approximately seven water facilities, the KCVL communications tower, and the BPA powerline is considered critical infrastructure.

Table 4.4 Municipal Water Sources in the FEMA floodplain. System Name System Type Source Name Source Type Contact City NORTHWEST ALLOYS INC Group B Well #1 Well in Well Field Addy NORTHWEST ALLOYS INC Group B Well #2 Well in Well Field Addy CHEWELAH WATER DEPT SOUTH Community Alm Lane WF/S0, S04 Well Field Chewelah CHEWELAH WATER DEPT SOUTH Community Alm Lane 2 (Well 7) Well in Well Field Chewelah Non-Transient, STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY Non-Community South Well AGG010 Well COEUR DALENE Transient Non- CROSSROADS BAR AND GRILL Community Well #1- AGG489 Well Colville ELM TREE WATER & SEWER ASSN Community Well #1 - AGG014 Well Colville ST. CLAIR, CHAN WATER SYSTEM Group B WELL 1 Well COLVILLE SHILOH WATER SYSTEM Community Well #1 Well in Well Field Colville SHILOH WATER SYSTEM Community WF/S01, S02 Well Field Colville SHILOH WATER SYSTEM Community Well #2 Well in Well Field Colville DAVIS, HAL WATER SYSTEM Group B DAVIS WELL #1 Well COLVILLE MISSION RIDGE WATER SYSTEM Community Well B Well Colville Transient Non- BEAVER LODGE Community Well #1 Well COLVILLE WILLIAMS LAKE CAMP GROUND Group B Well #1 Well COLVILLE Transient Non- Cloverleaf Campground - CLOVERLEAF CAMPGROUND Community AHC128 Well COULEE DAM Transient Non- MARCUS ISLAND CAMPGROUND Community Marcus Island - AHC077 Well COULEE DAM Transient Non- KAMLOOPS ISLAND CAMPGROUND Community Well #1 - AHC051 Well COULEE DAM FORD HATCHERY WATER SYSTEM Group B WELL #1 Well FORD Swanson Add. Well - STEVENS CO PUD - DEER LAKE Community ACW894 Well LOON LAKE STEVENS CO PUD - ADDY Community NW Alloys - AGG004 Well LOON LAKE KETTLE FALLS WATER DEPT Community Well #2 - AHC046 Well in Well Field Kettle Falls KETTLE FALLS WATER DEPT Community The Falls Surface Kettle Falls LANDS WATER SYSTEM Group B WELL #1 Well NINE MILE FALLS DRAKE S II Group B DRAKES WELL 1 Well TACOMA MELVILLE S WATER SYSTEM Group B WELL 1 Well VALLEY LANE MOUNTAIN SILICA COMPANY Group B WELL 1 Well VALLEY LANE MOUNTAIN SILICA COMPANY Group B WELL 2 Well VALLEY

53 Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can prevent access throughout the County can isolate residents and emergency service providers needing to access vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris from floods also can cause isolation. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events causing localized flooding problems. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing further health problems. Flood waters can get into drinking water supplies causing contamination. Underground utilities can also be damaged during flood events. Damage to infrastructural elements, particularly roadways, is the most widely felt impact from floods. After major floods, it may take weeks to repair damaged road surfaces and bridges to restore the County’s ability to import supplies and materials needed by residents. Currently, there is approximately 82 miles of roadway (federal, state, county) in the FEMA identified floodplain. Table 4.5 summarizes significant access routes located in the floodplain.

Table 4.5 Significant Access Routes located in floodplain. Road Name Length (Miles) Aladdin Road 4 BNSF Railroad 16 State Route 231 1 State Route 291 2 Onion Creek Road 1 State Route 25 5 U.S. Highway 395 2 Springdale-Hunters Road 2 Williams Lake Road 2 Deep Lake-Boundary Road 1 Most of the farmland in the County is adjacent to rivers, creeks and lakes. Flooding renders this land unusable because of the actual water level, debris left behind, destruction of fences and damage or loss of irrigation equipment. These problems can persist for years after the flooding subsides.

The other adopting jurisdictions have similar loss estimations to what is described for the County as a whole.

Vulnerability - Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss (RL) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties are those NFIP-insured properties that have experienced multiple flood losses since 1978. FEMA tracks RL properties to identify SRL properties. RL properties demonstrate a record of repeated flooding for a certain location and are one element of the vulnerability analysis. RL properties are also important to the NFIP since structures that flood frequently put a strain on the National Flood Insurance Fund. Although there are no RL/SRL properties, there has been 5 paid claims submitted totaling $52,459 under this program in the unincorporated Stevens County and 2 paid claims in the City of Chewelah totaling $5,080 according to a report run by the Washington Department of Ecology.

NFIP Participation Participation in the NFIP is a key element of any community’s local floodplain management and flood mitigation strategy. Stevens County, Colville, Chewelah and the Town of Springdale all participate in the NFIP. Joining the NFIP requires the adoption of a floodplain management ordinance that requires

54 jurisdictions to follow established minimum standards set forth by FEMA and the State of Washington when developing in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by the 100-year flood (1% flood), and that new floodplain development will not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. As a participant in the NFIP, communities benefit primarily from having access to federally backed flood insurance. Enrolled communities also benefit from having Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that show flood hazard areas and can be used to assess flood hazard risk, regulated construction practices, and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are also an important source of information to educate residents, government officials and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community. Table 4.6 summarizes the NFIP status and statistics for each of the jurisdictions participating in this Program.

Table 4.6. NFIP Policy Statistics as of 1/30/2018 in Stevens County. Community Policies Insurance In- Written FIRM Floodplain Ordinance/ CRS Name In-Force Force Premium In- Effective Manager Ranking Force Date Paulette Yochum Stevens County 63 $14,106,500 $0 9/14/1990 10 [email protected] RJ Keetch City of Colville 1 $210,000 $0 6/05/1985 10 [email protected] Mike Frizzle City of Chewelah 7 $1,936,300 $0 2/05/1986 10 [email protected] Town of Lisa Shepperd 1 $350,000 $0 4/01/1999 10 Springdale [email protected] The County and cities that participate in NFIP for the benefit of their residents will continue to participate in the program in the future. The County will encourage other cities to participate that are not currently enrolled in the program (Northport, Kettle Falls, etc.). The currently enrolled entities will also continue to educate and promote the program to residents/property owners that lay within the floodzone.

Community Rating System The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program for NFIP participating communities. The goals of the CRS are to reduce flood damages to insurable property, strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP, and encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. The CRS has been developed to provide incentives in the form of premium discounts for communities that go beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements and develop extra mitigation measures that reduce flood risk to insured properties, thus reducing the overall tax on the Program nationally.

There are 10 CRS classes; Class 1 provides the most credits and gives the greatest premium discount, Class 10 identifies a community that does not apply for the CRS discount, or that does not obtain a minimum number of credit points therefore receives no discount. Activities recognized as measures for reducing exposure to floods and worth CRS points are organized under four main categories; Public Information, Mapping and Regulation, Flood Damage Reduction, and Flood Preparedness. Currently, Stevens County, Colville, Chewelah and Springdale have CRS ratings of 10.

Second Order Hazard Events

Except for dam failure, flood events are typically caused by severe weather events such as thunder storms or rapid spring runoff. Stevens County has a high risk of major flood damages; however, flood events can

55 trigger other types of hazard events that may be more damaging than the flood itself. The following chart outlines the interconnection between flood and other types of hazard events.

Table 4.7 Second-Order Hazards Related to Flood Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects Severe Weather Landslide Dam/Culvert Failure Dam Failure Rapid Snowmelt Transportation Systems Infectious

Disease/Epidemic/Pandemic Crop Loss Power Outage Hazardous Materials Drinking Water Contamination

56 Earthquake

Description

More than 1,000 earthquakes occur in the state annually. Washington has a record of at least 20 damaging earthquakes during the past 125 years. Large earthquakes in 1946, 1949, and 1965 killed 15 people and caused more than $200 million (1984 dollars) in property damage. Most of these earthquakes were in western Washington, but several, including the largest historic earthquake in Washington (1872), occurred east of the Cascade crest. Earthquake histories spanning thousands of years from Japan, China, Turkey, and Iran show that large earthquakes recur there about hundreds or thousands of years. Washington's short historical record (starting about 1833) is inadequate to sample its earthquake record. Using a branch of geology called paleoseismology to extend the historical record, geologists have found evidence of large, prehistoric earthquakes in areas where there have been no large historic events, suggesting that most of the state is at risk (Walsh et al. 2006). Figure 4.3 Geologic Setting in Washington.

Washington is situated at a convergent continental margin, the collisional boundary between two tectonic plates. The Cascadia subduction zone, which is the convergent boundary between the North America plate and the Juan de Fuca plate, lies offshore from northernmost California to southernmost British Columbia. The two plates are converging at a rate of about 3-4 centimeters per year (about 2 inches per year); in

57 addition, the northward-moving Pacific plate is pushing the Juan de Fuca plate north, causing complex seismic strain to accumulate. Earthquakes are caused by the abrupt release of this slowly accumulated strain.

Intraplate, or Benioff zone, earthquakes occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca plate at depths of 15 to 60 miles, although the largest events typically occur at depths of about 25 to 40 miles. The largest recorded event was the magnitude 7.1 Olympia quake in 1949. Other significant Benioff zone events include the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually quake of 2001, the magnitude 5.8 Satsop quake in 1999, and the magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma quake in 1965. Strong shaking lasted about 20 seconds in the 1949 Olympia earthquake and about 15 to 20 seconds during the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Since 1900, there have been five earthquakes in the Puget Sound basin with measured or estimated magnitude 6.0 or larger, and one of magnitude 7. The approximate rate for earthquakes like the 1965 magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma event and the 2001 Nisqually event is once every 35 years. The approximate reoccurrence rate for earthquakes like the 1949 magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake is once every 110 years.

Subduction zone, or interpolate, earthquakes occur along the interface between tectonic plates. Scientists have found evidence of great magnitude earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. These earthquakes were very powerful (magnitude 8 to 9 or greater) and occurred about every 400 to 600 years. This interval, however, has been irregular, as short as 100 years and as long as 1,100 years. The last of these great earthquakes struck Washington in 1700.

Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within about 20 miles of the surface. Recent examples occurred near Bremerton in 1997, near Duvall in 1996, off Maury Island in 1995, near Deming in 1990, near North Bend in 1945, just north of Portland in 1962, and at Elk Lake on the St. Helens seismic zone (a fault zone running north-northwest through Mount St. Helens) in 1981. These earthquakes had a magnitude of 5 to 5.5. Scientists believe the 1872 magnitude 6.8 earthquake near Lake Chelan was shallow and may be the state’s most widely felt earthquake. The 1936 magnitude 6.1 earthquake near Walla Walla also was shallow. Because of their remote locations and the relatively small population in the region, damage was light from these two quakes. Recurrence rates for earthquakes on surface faults are unknown; however, four magnitude 7.0 or greater events occurred during the past 1,100 years, including two since 1918 on Vancouver Island.

The state’s two largest crustal earthquakes felt by European settlers occurred in Eastern Washington – the 1872 quake near Lake Chelan and the 1936 earthquake near Walla Walla. Residents of Spokane strongly felt a swarm of earthquakes in 2001; the largest earthquake in the swarm had a magnitude of 4.0. The recent Spokane earthquakes were very shallow, with most events located within a few miles of the surface. The events occurred near a suspected fault informally called the Latah Fault; however, the relation between the fault and the swarm is uncertain. Geologists have mapped the Spokane area, but none confirmed the presence of major faults that might be capable of producing earthquakes. State geologists continue to investigate the geology and earthquake risk near Spokane.

Elsewhere in Eastern Washington, geologists have uncovered evidence of several surface faults; however, they have not yet determined how active the faults are, nor determined the extent of the risk they pose to the public. One fault, Toppenish Ridge, appears to have been the source of two earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.5 to 7.3 in the past 10,000 years (EMD 2004).

58 History

Figure 4.4 Historic Earthquake Epicenters with Magnitudes of 3.0 or Greater (1872 – 2011).17

There have been no recorded earthquakes within Stevens County. Indirect effects from nearby earthquakes could have been experienced in the past but nothing has occurred since the last version of the plan was updated.

Probability and Magnitude

Washington ranks second in the nation after California among states vulnerable to earthquake damage according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency study. The study predicts Washington is vulnerable to an average annual loss of $228 million per event. Earthquakes in Eastern Washington are typically shallow, crustal type, and are the least understood of all earthquake types. The Okanogan Highlands contain many minor faults; however, Stevens County is not at a high risk of experiencing a damaging earthquake relative to the rest of Washington State.

17 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2018. Available online at: https://www.mil.wa.gov/other- links/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan. Accessed, November 2018.

59 Figure 4.5 Stevens County Earthquake Shaking.

60 Vulnerability

Table 4.8 Overall Earthquake Significance Summary.

Springdale

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Northport Town

Town of Town

ConservationDistrict NETri

Earthquake Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Vulnerability - Loss Estimations Figure 4.5 shows the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) expected for Stevens County with a 2% chance of exceeding these numbers in a fifty-year period. Peak ground acceleration is equal to the maximum ground acceleration that can, or has, occurred during earthquake shaking at a location. This scale is different from the Richter because it does not measure the total energy (magnitude) of the event, but rather how hard the earth shakes at a geographic point. The entire County has a chance to experience PGA between a 5% and 8%. The probability of an earthquake in Stevens County is relatively low compared to that of western Washington State.

Past events suggest that an earthquake in the Stevens County area would cause little to no damage. Most crustal earthquakes are in 5.0 to 5.5 magnitude range, and do not have a history of occurrence in the County. Nonetheless, severity can increase in areas that have softer soils, such as unconsolidated sediments. Damage would be negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; and considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures.

Earthquakes can cause several secondary effects. They can cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and rock or mud slides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often because of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and “float” freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding-like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released causing significant damage to the environment and people.

It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Stevens County because of the low periodicity of earthquakes and unknown building factors such as year of construction and building materials. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the potential losses would be minimal because of the high percentage of structures which are relatively new wooden frame construction. Key infrastructure buildings such as the County Courthouse, Medical Clinic, and the schools are multi-story buildings with a component of masonry used in construction. Thus, these buildings would be at an increased risk to loss during an earthquake (both in terms of financial loss and loss of life).

Unreinforced masonry structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged during an earthquake. There are several unreinforced masonry structures in the County in addition to the numerous

61 homes and other buildings throughout the County with unreinforced chimneys. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. Mobile homes and/or manufactured homes, particularly those not attached to a foundation, are also at higher risk.

Table 4.9 Estimate of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings by Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction Estimate of Unreinforced Value of Buildings Masonry Buildings Unincorporated County 100 - 200 $11.1 to $22.2 million Colville 100 - 200 $13.1 to $26.3 million Chewelah 50 - 75 $5.8 to $8.7 million Kettle Falls 30 - 50 $3.1 to $5.1 million Marcus 0 $0 Northport 5 - 10 $270,984 to $541,968 Springdale 5 - 10 $261,648 to $523,295

Critical facilities include: medical and health services, governmental functions (including executive, legislative, and judicial offices); protective functions (including police and fire stations), Stevens County Sheriff’s Ambulance Building, community shelters, water supplies, wastewater treatment, and schools (including pre-school, primary, and secondary schools). Loss or damage to critical facilities would result in severe disruption in the daily functioning of Stevens County. Incapacitation of one or more of these critical facilities could restrict emergency response and medical care, prevent children from going to school, stop normal governmental functions, contaminate water supplies, and potentially lead to chaos and looting.

Water, sewer, and irrigation infrastructure would likely suffer considerable damage in the event of an earthquake. Several communities in Stevens County, both incorporated and unincorporated, have water storage tanks that could be damaged during an earthquake; potentially cutting off access to clean drinking water for some residents. In addition, personal well systems could also collapse or become damaged. All or part of the municipal sewer systems in the County could also be damaged causing backups and/or detriment to the surrounding ecosystem. Without further analysis of the individual components of this type of infrastructure, all these systems are exposed to potential breakage and failure because of earthquake.

No specific jurisdictions or special districts were identified as having differing issues or levels of risk associated with this hazard.

Second-Order Hazard Events

Earthquake events can result in other types of hazard incidents. In a disaster event, the first hazard event may not be the primary cause of damages or losses within the community. Historical earthquake events have often resulted in structural fires due to broken gas lines, candles, electrical malfunctions, etc. The following chart outlines the interconnection between earthquake hazards and other types of hazard events.

62 Table 4.10 Second-Order Hazards Related to Earthquake Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects None Dam Failure Structural/Urban Fire Wildland Fire Transportation System Hazardous Materials Landslide Power Outage Seiche Volcano

Landslide

Description

The State of Washington Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies six landslide provinces. Stevens County is part of the Okanogan Highlands Province. This landslide province extends from the slopes of the North Cascades in the west to the Selkirk Mountains in the northeast corner of the state. The primary slope stability problem in this province is in the sediments within and along the boundary of the highlands. Thick sections of sediments along the valleys of the Columbia, Spokane, and Colville Rivers are the result of repeated damming of the Columbia River by lobes of the continental ice sheet and repeated catastrophic floods from breached dams.

The occurrence of new landslides and the reactivation of old landslides increased dramatically with the filling of reservoirs behind the Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams. Drawdowns for flood control and power generation also trigger new landslides and/or reactivate and extend old ones. Some of the landslide complexes extend for thousands of feet along the lakeshores, have head scarps in terraces 300 feet or more above reservoir level and extend well below its surface. With landslide activity common along hundreds of miles of shoreline, one hazard in such a setting is water waves generated by fast-moving landslide masses.

Stevens County is identified as one of the jurisdictions that have the greatest vulnerability for landslides in the State of Washington Hazard Mitigation Plan due to its Lake Roosevelt shoreline.

The primary factors that increase landslide risk are slope and certain soil characteristics. In general, the potential for landslide occurrence intensifies as slope increases on all soil types and across a wide range of geological formations.

Landslides may occur on slopes steepened by man during construction, or on natural ground never disturbed. However, most slides occur in areas that have had sliding in the past. All landslides are initiated by factors such as weaknesses in the rock and soil, earthquake activity, the occurrence of heavy snow or rainfall, or construction activity that changes a critical factor involved with maintaining stability of the soil or geology of the area. A prime example of this includes previously stable slopes where home construction utilizing independent septic systems are added. The increased moisture in the ground, when coupled with an impermeable layer below the septic systems has led to surface soil movements and mass wasting.

63 Landslides can be triggered by natural changes in the environment or by human activities. Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often combine with one or more triggering events, such as heavy rain, snowmelt, or changes in ground water level. Late spring-early summer is slide season, particularly after days and weeks of greater than normal precipitation. Long-term climate change may result in an increase in precipitation and ground saturation and a rise in ground-water level, reducing the shear strength and increasing the weight of the soil.

Stream and riverbank erosion, road building or other excavation can remove the toe or lateral slope and exacerbate landslides. Seismic or volcanic activity often triggers landslides as well. Urban and rural living with excavations, roads, drainage ways, landscape watering, logging, and agricultural irrigation may also disturb the solidity of landforms, triggering landslides. In general, any land use changes that affects drainage patterns or that increase erosion or change ground-water levels can augment the potential for landslide activity.

Landslides are a recurrent menace to waterways and highways and a threat to homes, schools, businesses, and other facilities. The unimpeded movement over roads, whether for commerce, public utilities, school, emergencies, police, recreation, or tourism, is essential to the normal functioning of Stevens County. The slopes of the Colville Valley pose special problems to U.S. Highway 395. This route is the main transportation corridor through the County and has been impacted in the past by landslides resulting from road construction and heavy precipitation. The disruption and dislocation of these or any other routes caused by landslides can quickly jeopardize travel and vital services.

64 Figure 4.6 Landslide Prone Landscapes Analysis.

65 History

Stevens County does not have many documented landslides. Those that have occurred are generally associated with the Lake Roosevelt shoreline or damage and/or blockage of a roadway. There are several recent reports of mudslides and landslides along the moderate to steep slopes found along U.S. Highway 395. There have been no landslides to directly impact any of the cities/towns within their respective city/town limits.

August 2015 - Federal Disaster #4243. On October 20, 2015, President Obama declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Washington. This declaration made Public Assistance requested by the Governor available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the wildfires and mudslides in Chelan, Ferry, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Whatcom, and Yakima Counties and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. This declaration also made Hazard Mitigation Grant Program assistance requested by the Governor available for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

2017 - Stevens County had a total of 69 landslides, more than any county in the state of Washington. Although there was not significant damages or injuries reported, there was portions of highway 25 between Kettle Falls and Northport that were closed until the slides could be cleared.

Probability and Magnitude

While a large area of Stevens County is at high risk to landslides (Figure 4.6), most of this area occupies the rural mountainous regions. Home and business development in the County has been mainly on lands not at significant risk to landslides.

Much of the populated areas in Stevens County are at risk to flooding, which often results in damaging landslides. Flash floods typically carry large amounts of debris, silt, and rocks that are deposited in downstream floodplains. Additionally, soil saturation ensuing from prolonged periods of rain or flooding can lead to slope instability. Cut and fill slopes, even those well outside of the flood plain, are particularly at risk to slides and/or slumping because of soil saturation.

The primary slope stability problem is associated with the sediments within and along the boundary of Lake Roosevelt. The occurrence of new landslides and the reactivation of old landslides increased dramatically with the filling of reservoirs behind the Grand Coulee Dam, i.e. Lake Roosevelt. Drawdowns for flood control and power generation also trigger new landslides and/or reactivate and extend old ones. Some of the landslide complexes along Lake Roosevelt extend for thousands of feet along the lakeshores, have head scarps in terraces 300 feet or more above reservoir level and extend well below its surface. With landslide activity common along hundreds of miles of shoreline, one hazard in such a setting is water waves generated by fast-moving landslide masses.

66 Vulnerability

Table 4.11 Overall Landslide Significance Summary.

Springdale

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Northport Town

Town of Town

ConservationDistrict NETri Landslide High Low Low Low High Medium Low Medium Medium Medium

Vulnerability - Loss Estimations Using the parcel information and asset values maintained by the Stevens County Assessor’s office, overlaid with the Landslide Prone Landscapes map developed by Northwest Management, Inc. and Stevens County, we have completed an assessment of the assets at risk to damage from landslides in Stevens County. Stevens County has over $320 million worth of improvements and 218,436 acres within the landslide impact zones mapped in Figure 4.7. Although individual homes and sections of roadways or powerlines could be heavily impacted or destroyed during a landslide, no county, municipality or special districts participating in the development of this plan own or maintain facilities or other assets that are currently located within the landslide impact zones. Furthermore, Stevens County is unaware of any critical facility that is currently located in the landslide impact zones.

Table 4.12 Summary of Assets at Risk in Landslide Impact Zones Impact Zone Number of Number of Total Improvement Structures Acres Value Loon Lake-Ford 2189 61,291 $243,478,315 South-Fruitland 3 12,579 $333,684 Cedonia-Hunters 6 8,394 $667,369 East Chewelah 50 11,633 $5,561,405 Addy-Blue Creek 193 12,098 $21,467,024 Gifford-Maud 49 14,000 $5,450,177 West Colville 96 17,419 $10,677,898 Evans-Aladdin 112 34,648 $12,457,547 Onion Creek-Boundary 142 35,959 $15,794,390 Orient-Dulwich 38 10,415 $4,226,668 Total 2,878 218,436 $320,114,478

The cost of cleanup and repairs of roadways is difficult to estimate due to the variable circumstances with each incident including size of the slide, proximity to a State or County shop, and whether the slide occurred on the cut slope or the fill slope. Other factors that could affect the cost of the damage may include culverts, streams, and removal of debris. This type of information is impossible to anticipate; thus, no repair costs for damaged roadways have been estimated.

67 Numerous communities in Stevens County could be affected by landslides; however, Loon Lake is the only population center located directly within an identified Landslide Impact Zone. Nevertheless, landslides often cause road closures that may isolate rural communities for an extended period.

The South-Fruitland and Loon Lake-Ford Impact Zones are considered high risk due to unstable soil types usually due to an underlying hardpan. Landslides in this type of impact zone will typically consist of small slumps along toe slopes or in disturbed areas such as construction sites or cut and fill slopes of roads. Although not generally catastrophic, these types of slides generally occur more frequently.

The Addy-Blue Creek, Cedonia-Hunters, East Chewelah, Evans-Aladdin, Gifford-Maud, Onion Creek- Boundary, Orient-Dulwich, and West Colville Landslide Impact Zones are considered high risk due to increased slope and higher risk (schist or granite) underlying parent material. Slides in these impact zones are more likely to be larger and more damaging as weaknesses in the underlying rock formations give way. Although infrequent, this type of slide has the potential to not only block, but destroy road corridors, dam waterways, and demolish structures. The highest risk areas in these impact zones are typically at the higher elevations where slopes exceed 25% grade and along the Lake Roosevelt shoreline. There are numerous homes in each of these impact zones; however, for the most part, they are widely scattered. Thus, single slide events will not likely impact the entire population, but rather individual structures. Most of State Route 25 and sections of the Flowery Trail Road (Chewelah Mountain area) and U.S. 395 (Addy and Loon Lake), could be at risk from slides initiating in these impact zones. Past events have shown that areas along the Lake Roosevelt shore are not only at increased risk from slides directly but could also be impacted by slides in other areas as high velocity waves crash into opposite shorelines anywhere from 16 to 65 feet above the normal high-water level.

The major impact to the Conservation District would be the destruction of infrastructure needed to conduct business, which includes buildings, fences, and equipment.

Road closures anywhere between local medical facilities and the larger regional hospitals in Spokane would affect transferring critically injured individuals from Stevens County to the larger hospitals. Locally, road closures may increase the response times of first responders to get to patients.

Many of the landslides occurring annually throughout the County occur in the unincorporated areas thus impacting the other adopting jurisdictions by affecting travel times, oftentimes creating more of an inconvenience than a hazard. However, if individuals rely on a delivery service for food, care, oxygen, etc. then the impacts could be more severe.

68 Figure 4.7 Landslide Impact Zones in Stevens County.

69

Second-Order Hazard Events

Landslide events are often caused by other types of hazard events, but the costs of cleaning up after a landslide including road and other infrastructure repairs can often dwarf the damages of the initial hazard. The following chart outlines the interconnection between landslides and other types of hazard events.

Table 4.13 Second-Order Hazards Related to Landslide Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects Flood Transportation System Earthquakes Power Outage Wildland Fire

Severe Weather

Description

Severe storms are a serious hazard that can, and do, affect Washington. Severe storms can affect the entire state with varying degrees, due to the complex landscape and the influence from the Pacific Ocean. Washington’s climate sees a significant number of severe storms in comparison with the rest of the nation, posing considerable hazard to the state and local communities. Twenty-seven storm-related Presidential Disaster declarations were made in Washington between 1956 and 2006. In comparison, Idaho had only four.

Damaging storms do occur and casualties and extensive property damage result throughout the entire state. Four types of severe weather are of major concern in Washington:

• Winter storms with accumulations of snow and ice, extreme cold and reduced visibility. • Thunderstorms with hail, lightning, high winds, and flash flooding. • High wind or tornadoes No specific jurisdictions or special districts were identified as having differing issues or levels of risk associated with this hazard unless specifically mentioned in the following assessments.

Winter Storms

All areas of Stevens County are vulnerable to the threat of severe winter storms. Due to topography and climatologic conditions, the higher mountainous areas are often the most exposed to the effects of these storms. Normally the mountainous terrain and the north/south orientation of the Cascades tend to isolate severe storms into localized areas of the County. For example, higher elevations will receive snowfall, while the valley areas may not. Periodically though, individual storms can generate enough force to impact the entire County at one time. From high winds to ice storms to freezing temperatures, there are all types of winter storms that take place during any given year. Winter conditions can change very rapidly. It is not uncommon to have a snowstorm at night with sunshine the next day.

Winter storms with heavy snow, high winds, and/or extreme cold can have a considerable impact on Stevens County; however, most residents are well accustomed to the severe winter conditions in this part of Washington. Power outages and unplowed roads are a frequent occurrence throughout many parts of the County, but most residents are prepared to handle the temporary inconvenience. Nevertheless, Stevens 70

County is at risk to severe winter weather events. Commonly, heavy snow accumulations are the cause of disruptions to normal commuting activities (delays and inability to plow roads and driveways). When coupled with extreme cold weather, severe winter storms have a detrimental impact on residents in Stevens County, particularly the senior population. Severe winter storms also have the potential to cause large losses among livestock and wildlife. Animal losses are usually the result of dehydration rather than cold or suffocation.

Snow loads on roofs, ice-slides off roofs onto vehicles or other buildings, and damaged frozen pipes are also potential hazards associated with winter weather. These events represent a significant hazard to public health and safety, a substantial disruption of economic activity, and a constant threat to structures during the winter months. An average of at least two severe storms is anticipated each winter in Stevens County.

Stevens County is not considered to be one of the Counties most vulnerable to winter storms and blizzards in Washington according to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Areas most vulnerable to winter storms are those affected by convergence of dry, cold air from the interior of the North American continent, and warm, moist air off the Pacific Ocean. Typically, significant winter storms occur during the transition between cold and warm periods. Counties considered most vulnerable to winter storm are 1) those most affected by conditions that lead to such storms, as described above, and 2) those with a recurrence rate of 50%, meaning the County experiences at least one damaging winter storm event every two years. Counties that meet both criteria are highlighted in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.8 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Winter Storms.

Areas most vulnerable to blizzards are those subject to the combination of winter storms and high winds. Counties considered most vulnerable to blizzards are 1) those most affected by conditions that lead to blizzard, as described above, or 2) those with a blizzard recurrence rate of 2.5%, meaning the County experiences at least one damaging high wind event every 40 years. Counties highlighted in Figure 4.8 meet one of the above criteria; counties only need to meet one of the two criteria to be considered most vulnerable

71 due to a lack of data on blizzard events. Higher elevation areas in Stevens County are at high risk to blizzards according to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4.9 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Blizzard.

Thunderstorms

Due to their relative frequency and minimal severity, severe thunderstorms are not well documented in Stevens County. Their impacts are limited and do not significantly affect the communities enough to declare a disaster. The secondary impacts of thunderstorms, floods, are emphasized within the flood chapter of this document.

Stevens County is not considered to be one of the Counties most vulnerable to severe thunderstorms according to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Areas most vulnerable to this type of storm are those subject to a strong southwesterly flow of moist, unstable air that generates strong, sometimes violent thunderstorms with one or more of the following characteristics: strong damaging winds, large hail, waterspouts, or tornados. Counties considered most vulnerable to severe thunderstorm are 1) those most affected by conditions that lead to such storms, as described above, or 2) those with a recurrence rate of 20% or greater, meaning the County experiences one damaging severe thunderstorm event at least once every five years. Counties highlighted in Figure 4.9. meet both criteria.

72

Figure 4.10 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Severe Thunderstorms.

Hail

Hail can occur in any strong thunderstorm, which means hail is a threat everywhere. Hail is precipitation that is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere. Large hail stones can fall at speeds faster than 100 miles per hour.

The potential impacts of a severe hail storm in Stevens County include crop damage, downed power lines, downed or damaged trees, broken windows, roof damage, and vehicle damage. Hail storms can, in extreme cases, cause death by exposure. The most common direct impact from ice storms to people is traffic accidents. Over 85% of ice storm deaths nationwide are caused by traffic accidents. Hail storms also have the potential to cause losses among livestock.

The highest potential damage from hail storms in Stevens County is the economic loss from crop damage. Even small hail can cause significant damage to young and tender plants and fruit. Trees can also be severely damaged by hail as was seen in the 1996 ice storm. Even larger diameter trees can be stripped of their foliage and limbs. Much like logging slash, this debris stays on the ground for many years inviting insects and disease infestations.

Severe Wind

Windstorms are frequent in Stevens County and they have been known to cause substantial damage. The predicted wind speed given in wind warning issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) is for a one- minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Under most conditions, the County’s highest winds come from the south or southwest. Due to the abundance of agricultural development in Stevens County, crop damage due to high winds can have disastrous effects on the local economy. In the case of extremely high winds, some buildings may be damaged or destroyed. Wind damages will generally be categorized into four groups: 1) structure damage to roofs, 2) structure damage from falling trees, 3) damage from wind- blown dust on sensitive receptors, or 4) wind driven wildfires.

73

Structural injury from damaged roofs is mildly common in Stevens County. Many homes in the area have metal roof materials (for better snow shedding) which fare better than asphalt shingles during high winds but are still at risk to damage. Structural damage from falling trees is also very common in some parts of the County. Many homeowners have planted ornamental trees for shade and windbreak protections. However, many of these trees are located near, and upwind of homes putting them at risk to falling trees which could cause substantial structural damage and potentially put lives at risk. Air borne particulate matter increases during high wind events. When this occurs, sensitive receptors including the elderly and those with asthma are at increased risk to complications. Emergency response to these events has included assistance with daily activities such as shopping and medical assistance.

The National Weather Service defines high winds as sustained winds of 40 mph or gusts of 58 mph or greater, not caused by thunderstorms, expected to last for an hour or more. Areas most vulnerable to high winds are those affected by a strong pressure difference from deep storms originating over the Pacific Ocean; an outbreak of very cold, Arctic air originating over Canada; or air pressure differences between western and eastern Washington that primarily affect the Columbia River Gorge, Cascade Mountain passes, ridges and east slopes, and portions of the Columbia Basin. Counties considered most vulnerable to high winds are 1) those most affected by conditions that lead to high winds, as described above, and 2) those with a high wind recurrence rate of 100 percent, meaning the County experiences at least one damaging high wind event every year. Stevens County is not considered to be one of the most vulnerable to high winds in Washington State according to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Finally, Stevens County and the entire region are at increased risk to wildfires during high wind events. Ignitions can occur from a variety of sources including downed power lines, lightning, or arson. Once ignited, only wildfire mitigation efforts around the community and scattered homes will assist firefighters in controlling a blaze. Details about wildfire mitigation are discussed in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, incorporated into this Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. A tornado is formed by the turbulent mixing of layers of air with contrasting temperature, moisture, density, and wind flow. This mixing accounts for most of the tornadoes occurring in April, May, and June, when cold, dry air from the north or northwest meets warm, moister air moving up from the south. If this scenario was to occur and a major tornado was to strike a populated area in Stevens County, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period, and routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted.

The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a violently rotating column of air that contacts the ground; tornados usually develop from severe thunderstorms. Areas most vulnerable to tornado are those subject to severe thunderstorms, as described above. Counties considered most vulnerable to tornado are 1) those most affected by conditions that lead to such storms, as described above, or 2) those with a recurrence rate of 5 percent or greater, meaning the County experiences one damaging severe thunderstorm event at least once every 20 years. Counties highlighted in Figure 4.11 meet one of the above criteria; counties only need to meet one of the criteria to be considered as most vulnerable because the occurrence of tornados is uncommon in Washington. Stevens County meets at least one of these criteria; therefore, is one of the most vulnerable counties in Washington.

74

Figure 4.11 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Tornadoes.

History

The following history only documents events that have occurred since the previous plan was approved which adheres to

July 2015 - Windshear event that caused considerable property damage and power loss to residents in the Highway 20 area east of Colville.

November 2015 - Thunderstorms accompanied by 30-40 mph winds caused extensive power outages in southern Stevens County. Inland Power and Light Company said that nearly 3,000 residents in the Suncrest area lost power during the event.

Probability and Magnitude

Severe weather in Stevens County ranges from the commonly occurring thunderstorms to hail, tornadoes, high winds, drought, dense fog, lightning, and snowstorms. There have been 61 severe weather events in Stevens County since 1960 totaling 1 fatality, over $1.7 million in property damages, and over $5 million in crop damages. The top four most expensive severe weather events in Stevens County are attributed to windstorms. The two most expensive occurrences include a wind event in 2001 that caused over $5 million in property and crop damage and an event in 1991 that caused over $400,000 in property damages.18

Given the evidence of past weather patterns and damage caused, the probability of Stevens County continuing to experience severe weather events is very high. Nevertheless, residents in this area are

18 Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States. Arizona State University. Available online at: https://sheldus.asu.edu/SHELDUS/. Accessed January 2018. 75 generally aware of the potential hazard; thus, the likelihood of major damage is moderate. Crops are generally the most vulnerable to severe damage and economic loss.

Vulnerability

Table 4.13 Overall Severe Weather Significance Summary.

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Northport Town

Town of Springdale Town

ConservationDistrict NETri Severe High Medium High High Medium High High High High High Weather

Vulnerability - Loss Estimations Winter Storm

Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. In general, snow in this region tends to have low moisture content because of the low temperatures and arid environment. However, heavy snow is does occur.

Frozen water pipes are the more common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones.

Snow plowing in Stevens County occurs from a variety of departments and agencies. The State of Washington maintains the state highways. The Bureau of Indian Affairs plows “Agency Roads”, and the Spokane Tribe is responsible for plowing “Tribal Roads”, which includes driveways to homes on the Spokane Reservation. The Tribe has been limited in their ability to plow roads in the past because of limited equipment and funds. Plowing of county roads is done by the Stevens County Public Works Department and the road departments of the individual cities. Private landowners are responsible for maintaining their own driveways or other private roads.

Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two- fold impact on Stevens County residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population is at a disadvantage.

Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications.

Severe Wind

Given the evidence of past weather patterns and damage caused, the probability of Stevens County continuing to experience severe weather events is very high. Nevertheless, residents in this area are generally aware of the potential hazard; thus, the likelihood of major damage is moderate. Crops are generally the most vulnerable to severe damage and economic loss.

76

It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Stevens County due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds.

We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows:

• 3% of the parcels damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.)

• 5% of the parcels received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof averaging $3,000)

Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large-scale wildfire event associated with high winds.

• Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large-scale wildfire event associated with high winds.

Based on the data provided by the County Assessor and GIS department, there are 23,204 total assessed buildings in Stevens County with a total value of approximately $2.6 billion. Using the criteria outlined above an estimate of the impact of high winds on in the County has been made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all buildings is estimated at approximately $39 million. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $3.5 million.

Table 4.14 Loss estimates for severe wind in Stevens County. Jurisdictions Number of Total Estimated Structural Roof Total Structures1 Structure Value2 Damage 3 Damage 4 Estimated Losses Stevens County $34.2 (unincorporated) 18,825 $2,093,869,022 $31.4 million $2.8 million million NE Tri-County Health $42.5 District 23,204 $2,599,067,464 $39 million $3.5 million million Fire District #1 Colville 2,085 $273,686,288 $4.1 million $312,750 $4.4 million Chewelah 1,200 $139,305,965 $2.1 million $180,000 $2.3 million Totals

Hail

Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property as well as to the vast forestlands and extensive agricultural development in Stevens County. The most significant losses are most clearly seen in the agriculture sectors of the County’s economy. Potential losses to agriculture can be disastrous. They can also be very localized; thus, individual farmers can have significant losses, but the event may not drastically affect the economy of the County. Furthermore, crop damage from hail will also be different depending on the time of year and the type of crop. Most farmers carry insurance on their crops to help mitigate the potential financial loss resulting from a localized hail storm. Federal and state aid is available for County’s with declared hail disasters resulting in significant loss to local farmers as well as the regional economy. 77

Homeowners in Stevens County rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles can happen. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown.

High winds and other severe weather can impact the Conservation District by causing loss of timber, damage to buildings and fences, and restrict access to property.

Severe weather is often widespread and therefore impacts all adopting jurisdictions similarly.

Second-Order Hazard Events

Severe weather is often the causal factor in damages from other types of hazard incidents such as flood or wildland fire. The following chart outlines the interconnection between severe weather and other types of hazard events.

Table 4.15 Second-Order Hazards Related to Severe Weather Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects None Drought Crop Loss Tornado Wildland Fire Power Outage Transportation Flood

Wildland Fire

The information used for the wildfire profile was taken from the Stevens County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2015 update. For more detailed information on wildfire please refer to that plan. The Stevens County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 update is officially recognizing the 2015 Stevens County CWPP by annex into this update and therefore will be updated in conjunction with this plan.

Description

The Okanogan Highlands are a patch-work of dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and lodgepole forests that, in many areas, have become overstocked, resulting in multistoried conditions with abundant ladder fuels. During pre-settlement times, much of this area was characterized by low intensity fires due to the relatively light fuel loading, which mostly consisted of small diameter fuels. Frequent, low intensity fires generally kept stands open; free of fire intolerant species and maintained seral species such as ponderosa pine as well as larger diameter fire resistant Douglas-fir. In some areas, low intensity fires stimulated shrubs and grasses, maintaining vigorous browse and forage. The shrub layer could either inhibit or contribute to potential fire behavior, depending on weather and live fuel moisture conditions at the time of the burn.

In general, large fires that start in the Okanogan Highlands start high in elevation and move downhill. As fires move down in elevation, they encounter drier and flashier fuels in the lower elevations. Rolling embers and spot fires are a common method of downhill fire spread. Spot fires ignited on slopes trigger uphill runs that throw more spot fires, expanding the downward fire progression. Modifying fuels to reduce the likelihood of torching and crowning trees will in turn reduce the likelihood of spot fires.

78

Increased activities by pathogens will continue to increase levels of dead and down fuel, as host trees succumb to insect attack and stand level mortality increases. Overstocked, multi-layered stands and the abundance of ladder fuels lead to horizontal and vertical fuel continuity. These conditions, combined with an arid and often windy environment, can encourage the development of a stand replacing fire. These fires can burn with very high intensities and generate large flame lengths and fire brands that can be lofted long distances. Such fires present significant control problems for suppression resources, often developing into large, destructive wildland fires.

A probability that needs to be planned for is the likelihood of extended spot fires. Large fires may easily produce spot fires from ½ to 2 miles away from the main fire. How fire suppression forces respond to spot fires is largely dependent upon the fuels in which they ignite. Stands of timber that are managed for fire resilience are much less likely to sustain torching and crowning behavior that produces more spot fires. The objective of fuel reduction thinning is to change the fuels in a way that will moderate potential fire behavior. If fire intensity can be moderated by vegetation treatments, then ground and air firefighting resources can be much more effective.

Areas that have recently burned, such as the Carpenter Road area, will be at low risk of wildfires starting and spreading for several years because fine fuels were consumed. However, the overall reduction in hazardous fuels in these areas is minimal, particularly in dry Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests which were dense, multi-storied stands prior to wildfire. Dense stands of snags will become heavy dead and down branches and logs within 10-20 years. Fine fuels will return to these sites as understory species re-establish and these fuels combined with the accumulated large fuels will provide the opportunity for severe fire in 20-30 years after the initial wildfire.

History

Across the west, wildfires have been increasing in extent and cost of control. Data summaries for 2007 through 2017 are provided to demonstrate the variability of the frequency and extent of wildfires nationally.

Table 4.16 Statistical Highlights of Wildfires from 2007 -2017 Nationally. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Fires 85,705 78,979 78,792 71,971 74,126 67,774 47,579 63,212 68,151 67,743 71,499 10-year Average 80,125 79,918 78,549 76,521 80,465 74,912 74,560 73,128 73,267 63,573 68,968 ending with indicated year Acres Burned (million 9.3 5.3 5.9 3.4 8.7 9.2 4.3 3.6 10.1 5.5 10 acres) 10-year Average ending with indicated year 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.5 7.0 7.3 7.2 6.8 6.7 6.1 6.6 (million acres) Structures Destroyed ------788 5,246 4,244 2,135 1,953 4,636 4,312 12,306 Estimated Cost of Fire $1.84 $1.85 $1.24 $1.13 $1.73 $1.9 $1.7 $1.5 $2.1 $1.98 $2.92 Suppression billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion (Federal agencies only)

The National Interagency Fire Center and the National Incident Coordination Center maintains records of fire costs, extent, and related data for the entire nation. Tables 4.15 and 4.16 summarize some of the relevant wildland fire data for the nation and some trends that are likely to continue unless targeted fire mitigation efforts are implemented and maintained. According to these data, the total number of fires is trending

79 downward while the total number of acres burned is trending upward. Since 1980 there has been a significant increase in the number of acres burned.19 In 2017, the Pacific Northwest was slightly above average fire season.20

Table 4.17 Summary of National Ignitions and Acres Burned Annually (1980-2017). Year Fires Acres Year Fires Acres

2017 71,499 10,026,086 1998 81,043 2,329,709 2016 67,595 5,503,538 1997 89,517 3,672,616 2015 68,151 10,125,149 1996 115,025 6,701,390 2014 63,212 3,595,613 1995 130,019 2,315,730 2013 47,579 4,319,546 1994 114,049 4,724,014 2012 67,774 9,326,238 1993 97,031 2,310,420 2011 74,126 8,711,367 1992 103,830 2,457,665 2010 71,971 3,422,724 1991 116,953 2,237,714 2009 78,792 5,921,786 1990 122,763 5,452,874 2008 68,594 4,723,810 1989 121,714 3,261,732 2007 85,822 9,321,326 1988 154,573 7,398,889 2006 96,385 9,873,745 1987 143,877 4,152,575 2005 66,753 8,689,389 1986 139,980 3,308,133 2004 77,534 6,790,692 1985 133,840 4,434,748 2003 85,943 4,918,088 1984 118,636 2,266,134 2002 88,458 6,937,584 1983 161,649 5,080,553 2001 84,079 3,555,138 1982 174,755 2,382,036 2000 122,827 8,422,237 1981 249,370 4,814,206 1999 93,702 5,661,976 1980 234,892 5,260,825

These statistics are based on end-of-year reports compiled by all wildland fire agencies after each fire season. The agencies include: Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and all state agencies.

Recently, the Carpenter Road Fire that started on August 13, 2015 was started on the Spokane Indian Reservation, burned nearly 100 square miles, 42 structures and had 1 fatality. In August of 2015, the Marble Valley Fire burned nearly 3,100 acres near Addy. The Gold Hill Loop Fire in the Kettle Falls area burned over 1,000 acres while the Carpenter and Marble Valley Fires were burning. In July of 2018, another fire in the Marble Valley (Marble Valley Fire) burned 92 acres. The Deep North Fire was ignited on August 21, 2016 and located 10 miles north of Northport. It burned an estimated 600 acres before being contained. The Sheep Creek Fire began on July 30th, 2018. This fire burned nearly 500 acres 5 miles north of Northport.

Detailed records of wildfire ignitions and extents from the DNR and BLM have been analyzed. In interpreting these data, it is important to keep in mind that the information represents only the lands protected by the agency specified and may not include all fires in areas covered only by local fire departments or other agencies.

19 National Interagency Fire Center. 2017. Available online at http://www.nifc.gov/. 20 National Interagency Fire Center. Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report 2017. Available online at https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2017_statssumm/intro_summary17.pdf. 80

The State (1970-2013) and Federal (1980-2011) database of wildfire ignitions used in this analysis includes ignition and extent data within their jurisdictions. During this period, the agencies recorded an average of 149 wildfire ignitions per year resulting in an average total burn area of 2,056 acres per year. According to this dataset, the human caused ignitions account for 67% of the wildland fires occurring in Stevens County. However, the highest number of acres burned (91%) is attributed to the human caused ignitions.

From 2000 to 2018, the highest number of ignitions in Stevens County was witnessed in 2014 with 303 separate ignitions. The largest amount of area burned in Stevens County occurred in 2015 with nearly 70,000 acres being burned in a single year.

Table 4.18 Summary of Cause from State and BLM databases 2000-2018 Number of Percent of Percent of General Cause Acres Burned Ignitions Total Ignitions Total Acres Human-Caused 921 38% 6,466 8% Natural Ignition 394 16% 4,106 5% Unknown 1,099 45% 65,870 86% Total 2,435 76,442

During this 19-year span, wildland fires burned over 76,400 acres in Stevens County. The human caused ignitions account for 38% of all ignitions reported by state and federal agencies, while natural ignitions make up just 16% of the remainder of ignitions that occur in Stevens County. Ignitions with an unknow cause or still under investigation account for 45% of the ignitions and 86% of the acres burned. Figure 4.12. Summary of Stevens County State and Federal Ignitions by Cause.

Ignitions by Cause 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Human Natural Unknown

81

Figure 4.13. Summary of Stevens County State and Federal Acres Burned by Cause.

Acres by Cause 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

Human Natural Unknown

Approximately 65,000 acres that were burned in 2015 is still considered “undetermined” and is by far the largest fire in Stevens County during the past nearly two decades. Regardless of what the cause of this fire was, it is an abnormality for Stevens County to have a season of that magnitude.

Wildland fire that have occurred in recent years has impacted the Conservation District. Several wildland fires have burned both public and private lands in which the Conservation District has responded to assist landowners with cost-share assistance to replant trees, repair fences, and provide seed to replant rangeland.

The cities and towns have not been directly impacted by wildland fires. Indirect effects have occurred in many of the cities and towns since 2008. These impacts include but are not limited to; hosting displaced residents, road and business closures, and poor air quality.

Probability and Magnitude

Fire was once an integral function within most ecosystems in Washington. The seasonal cycling of fire across most landscapes was as regular as the July, August and September lightning storms plying across western Washington. Depending on the plant community composition, structural configuration, and buildup of plant biomass, fire resulted from ignitions with varying intensities and extent across the landscape. Shorter return intervals between fire events often resulted in less dramatic changes in plant composition.21 These fires burned from 1 to 47 years apart, with most at 5- to 20-year intervals.22 With infrequent return intervals, plant communities tended to burn more severely and be replaced by vegetation different in composition,

21 Johnson, C.G. 1998. Vegetation Response after Wildfires in National Forests of Northeastern Oregon. 128 pp. 22 Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest: the state of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-97. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 106 p. 82 structure, and age.23 Native plant communities in this region developed under the influence of fire, and adaptations to fire are evident at the species, community, and ecosystem levels.

Ideally, pre-European settlement historical fire data would be used to estimate the annual probability for fires in Stevens County. However, current data are not adequate to make credible calculations because the data for local, state, and federal responsibility areas are not reported by the same criteria. Nevertheless, the data reviewed above provides a general picture of the level of wildland-urban interface fire risk for Stevens County overall. Based on the historical information available, Stevens County has a very high probability of wildland fires occurring on an annual basis. Based on the historical data provided by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, a fire over 25,000 acres should be expected every three to five years.

Ignition potential is also high throughout the County. Recreational areas, major roadways, debris burning, and agricultural equipment are typically the most likely human ignition sources. Lightning is also a significant source of wildfires in Stevens County.

Stevens County was analyzed using a variety of models, managed on a Geographic Information System (GIS) system. Physical features of the region including roads, streams, soils, elevation, and remotely sensed images were represented by data layers. Field visits were conducted by specialists from Northwest Management, Inc. and others. Discussions with area residents and local fire suppression professionals augmented field visits and provided insights into forest health issues and treatment options. This information was analyzed and combined to develop an objective assessment of wildland fire risk in the region.

Relative Threat Level Following the field assessments, the steering Team began development of the Relative Threat Level model. Risk categories included finally were slope, aspect, precipitation, fuel models, fire intensity, and population density. The various categories, or layers, were ranked by the Team based on their significance pertaining to causal factors of high wildland fire risk conditions or protection significance. The ranked layers were then analyzed in a geographical information system to produce a cumulative effects map based on the ranking. Following is a brief explanation of the various categories used in the analysis and the general ranking scheme used for each.

• Environmental Factors – slope, aspect and precipitation all can have an enormous impact on the intensity of a wildfire. Therefore, areas with steep slopes, dry aspects, or lesser amounts of precipitation, relative to Stevens County, were given higher threat rankings. • Vegetation Cover Types – certain vegetation types are known to carry and produce more intense fires than other fuel types. For Stevens County, forest fuel models were given the higher rankings followed by shrub and grass fuel models, and short grass / agriculture. • Fire Behavior – areas identified by fire behavior modeling as having a high fire intensity were given a higher threat level ranking. • Populated Areas – these areas were ranked higher due to the presence of human populations, structures, and infrastructure requiring protection from fire. • Fire Ignition Risk – areas where multiple ignitions have occurred, received a higher threat level ranking.

23 Johnson, C.G.; Clausnitzer, R.R.; Mehringer, P.J.; Oliver, C.D. 1994. Biotic and Abiotic Processes of Eastside Ecosytems: the Effects of Management on Plant and Community Ecology, and on Stand and Landscape Vegetation Dynamics. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-322. USDA-Forest Service. PNW Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 722pp. 83

Each of the datasets were reviewed and their various characteristics Figure 4.14 Stevens County Relative Threat Level Map. were weighted from low to high based on their estimates of relative risk. The datasets were then subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA). A PCA for spatial data determines how much each dataset contributes to a model and if each dataset adds important information to the model. In this case, the PCA determined that all datasets were important for the model.

These layers were then analyzed in Geographical Information System using a Raster Calculator to produce the combined cumulative effects at a 30-meter pixel resolution. For any geographical location on the map, one pixel represents the combined values at that location from all 7 data layers. The results show a range of values from high to low based on the value range for the combined layers. Because agricultural land has a seasonal variability of wildfire threat, the agricultural lands are masked out with a constant color.

Wildland-Urban Interface The data reviewed above provides a general picture regarding the level of wildland-urban interface fire risk within Stevens County. Population growth rates have been minimal with development occurring along the river corridors. The growing appreciation for seclusion has led to significant development in many of the lower elevation forests. Frequently, this development is in the dry ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir forest types where grass, needle, and brush surface litter create forest fuel conditions that are at a high propensity for fire occurrence. Summer tourism in Stevens County can nearly double the population of the County. Human use is strongly correlated with fire frequency, with increasing numbers of fires as use increases. Discarded cigarettes, tire fires, and hot catalytic converters increase the potential for fire starts along roadways. Careless and unsupervised use of fireworks also contributes to unwanted and unexpected wildland fires. Further contributing to ignition sources are the debris burners and “sport burners” who use fire to rid ditches

84 of weeds and other burnable materials. The increased potential for fire starts and the influx of visitors places a massive strain on many of the County’s Fire Districts to protect those tourists.

There are several reasons why the fire risk may be even higher than suggested above, especially in developing wildland-urban interface areas. 1) Large fires may occur infrequently, but statistically they will occur. One large fire could significantly change the statistics. In other words, 40 years of historical data may be too short to capture large, infrequent wildland fire events. 2) The level of fire hazard depends profoundly on weather patterns. A several year drought period would substantially increase the probability of large wildland fires in Stevens County. For smaller vegetation areas, with grass, brush and small trees, a much shorter drought period of a few months or less would substantially increase the fire hazard. 3) The level of fire hazard in wildland-urban interface areas is likely significantly higher than for wildland areas due to the greater risk to life and property. The probability of fires starting in interface areas is much higher than in wildland areas because of the higher population density and increased activities. Many fires in the wildland urban interface are not recorded in agency datasets because the local fire department responded and successfully suppressed the ignition without mutual aid assistance from the state or federal agencies.

The wildland-urban interface (WUI) has gained attention through efforts targeted at wildfire mitigation; however, this analysis technique is also useful when considering other hazards because the concept looks at where people and structures are concentrated in any region.

A key component in meeting the underlying need for protection of people and structures is the protection and treatment of hazards in the wildland-urban interface. The wildland-urban interface refers to areas where wildland vegetation meets urban developments or where forest fuels meet urban fuels such as houses. The WUI encompasses not only the interface (areas immediately adjacent to urban development), but also the surrounding vegetation and topography. Reducing the hazard in the wildland-urban interface requires the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies and private individuals.24 “The role of [most] federal agencies in the wildland-urban interface includes wildland firefighting, hazard fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and education, and technical experience. Structural fire protection [during a wildfire] in the wildland-urban interface is [largely] the responsibility of Tribal, state, and local governments”.25 The role of the federal agencies in Stevens County is and will be much more limited. Property owners share a responsibility to protect their residences and businesses and minimize danger by creating defensible areas around them and taking other measures to minimize the risks to their structures.26 With treatment, a wildland-urban interface can provide firefighters a defensible area from which to suppress wildland fires or defend communities against other hazard risks. In addition, a wildland-urban interface that is properly treated will be less likely to sustain a crown fire that enters or originates within it. 27

24 Norton, P. Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fire Hazard Reduction Project: Final Environmental Assessment. Fish and Wildlife Services, Bear Valley Wildlife Refuge. June 20, 2002. 25 USFS. 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wildland Urban Interface. Web page. Date accessed: 25 September 2001. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/fire/urbanint.html 26 USFS. 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wildland Urban Interface. Web page. Date accessed: 25 September 2001. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/fire/urbanint.html 27 Norton, P. Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fire Hazard Reduction Project: Final Environmental Assessment. Fish and Wildlife Services, Bear Valley Wildlife Refuge. June 20, 2002. 85

By reducing hazardous fuel loads, ladder fuels, and tree densities, and creating new and reinforcing existing defensible space, landowners can protect the wildland-urban interface, the biological resources of the management area, and adjacent property owners by:

• minimizing the potential of high-severity ground or crown fires entering or leaving the area; • reducing the potential for firebrands (embers carried by the wind in front of the wildfire) impacting the WUI. Research indicates that flying sparks and embers (firebrands) from a crown fire can ignite additional wildfires as far as 1¼ miles away during periods of extreme fire weather and fire behavior;28 • improving defensible space in the immediate areas for suppression efforts in the event of wildland fire. Three wildland-urban interface conditions have been identified (Federal Register 66(3), January 4, 2001) for use in wildfire control efforts. These include the Interface Condition, Intermix Condition, and Occluded Condition. Descriptions of each are as follows:

• Interface Condition – a situation where structures abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences. The development density for an interface condition is usually 3+ structures per acre; • Intermix Condition – a situation where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is no clear line of demarcation; the wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres; and • Occluded Condition – a situation, normally within a city, where structures abut an island of wildland fuels (park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads and fences. The development density for an occluded condition is usually similar to that found in the interface condition and the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size. In addition to these classifications detailed in the Federal Register, Stevens County has included five additional classifications to augment these categories:

28 McCoy, L. K., et all. Cerro Grand Fire Behavior Narrative. 2001. 86

• Rural Condition – a Figure 4.15. Stevens County Wildland Urban Interface. situation where the scattered small clusters of structures (ranches, farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels. There may be miles between these clusters. • High Density Urban Areas – those areas generally identified by the population density consistent with the location of incorporated cities, however, the boundary is not necessarily set by the location of city boundaries or urban growth boundaries; it is set by very high population densities (more than 7-10 structures per acre). • Infrastructure Area WUI – those locations where critical and identified infrastructure is located outside of populated regions and may include high tension power line corridors, critical escape or primary access corridors, municipal watersheds, and areas immediately adjacent to facilities in the wildland such as radio repeater towers. • Non-WUI Condition – a situation where the above definitions do not apply because of a lack of structures in an area or the absence of critical infrastructure. This classification is not considered part of the wildland urban interface. In summary, the designation of areas by the Stevens County Planning Team includes:

• Interface Condition: WUI • Intermix Condition: WUI • Occluded Condition: WUI • Rural Condition: WUI • High Density Urban Areas: WUI • Infrastructure Areas: WUI 87

• Non-WUI Condition: Not WUI, but present in Stevens County Stevens County’s wildland urban interface (WUI) is mostly based on population density. Relative population density across the county was estimated using a GIS based kernel density population model that uses object locations to produce, through statistical analysis, concentric rings or areas of consistent density. To graphically identify relative population density across the county, structure locations are used as an estimate of population density. The County’s 911 address layer (GIS) was used to identify the locations of possible structures. The resulting output identified the extent and level of population density throughout the county.

By evaluating structure density in this way, WUI areas can be identified on maps by using mathematical formulae and population density indexes. The resulting population density indexes create concentric circles showing high density areas, interface, and intermix condition WUI, as well as rural condition WUI (as defined above). This portion of the analysis allows us to “see” where the highest concentrations of structures are in reference to relatively high-risk landscapes, limiting infrastructure, and other points of concern.

The WUI, as defined here, is unbiased and consistent, allows for edge matching with other counties, and most importantly – it addresses the entire county, not just federally identified communities at risk. It is a planning tool showing where homes and businesses are located and the density of those structures leading to identified WUI categories. It can be determined again in the future, using the same criteria, to show how the WUI has changed in response to increasing population densities. It uses a repeatable and reliable analysis process that is unbiased.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act makes a clear designation that the location of the WUI is at the determination of the county or reservation when a formal and adopted Community Wildfire Protection Plan is in place. It further states that the federal agencies are obligated to use this WUI designation for all Healthy Forests Restoration Act purposes. The Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team evaluated a variety of different approaches to determining the WUI for the county and selected this approach and has adopted it for these purposes. In addition to a formal WUI map for use with the federal agencies, it is hoped that it will serve as a planning tool for the county, state and federal agencies, and local fire districts.

Potential Mitigation Activities

Homeowners should be encouraged to use fire resistant materials when building or remodeling a structure in accordance with Firewise, FAC (Fire Adapted Communities) or similar organization.

Vegetation should be managed to increase the effectiveness of fire suppression equipment in the event of a wildland fire. Plantings near homes should use fire resistant landscaping and be well spaced. Grass surrounding homes and other buildings should be kept short and watered if possible. Other possible management actions include:

• Remove weak, dying, and sick trees, thin standing trees to create crown openings spaced to approximately 10 feet between crowns.

• Prune trees to a minimum of 12 feet of all branches.

• Prune 1/3 of the live crown of smaller trees. • Remove ladder fuels that may carry fire into the crowns of larger, overstory trees. • Dispose of all excess vegetative material by chipping or hand-piling and burning when conditions are favorable. 88

Many access roads throughout the County require additional treatments to ensure a viable escape route for residents while simultaneously providing for access by emergency vehicles. Most of the homes in the wildland-urban interface (situated within the range and forest lands) have multiple entrances and exits from their homes and businesses. The vegetation surrounding these access points should be trimmed and disposed of in such a way to allow easy access to and from homes. Site specific treatments should be developed for each home and subdivision.

In addition, some housing developments within the County have access roads that cannot support water trucks used by fire fighters (rural and wildland). Some roads have steep adverse grades, while others have turning radii that would be difficult for large trucks to navigate. Some roads have both limitations. Most of the bridges observed in the area would support water-laden trucks. Roads in developments should be signed to allow emergency vehicles to plot a route over navigable roads while responding to an emergency. High visibility address markers at driveways would improve accurate emergency vehicle response during fire or other incidents.

Post-fire Rehabilitation

The first-year post-fire has been shown to be the most critical for erosion and slope stabilization as vegetation attempts to recolonize the slopes. Therefore, every effort should be made, post-fire, to mitigate any further disturbance to affected watersheds. Soils, vegetation, and litter are all critical to the functioning of hydrologic processes. A watershed with good hydrologic conditions typically has 75% ground cover experiences only about 2% or less of rainfall as surface runoff.29 Conversely, a watershed that has had significant amounts of ground cover removed by a wildland fire can result in a surface runoff increase of 70%.78

Slope stabilization treatments often include; grass seeding, reforestation, contour-felled logs, mulch, silt fence construction, placement of straw wattles, and lop and scatter slash. These practices are often implemented as a ‘first line of defense’ against post-fire sediment movement.

Road treatments such as; outsloping, gravel on road surface, rocks in the ditch, culvert removal, culvert upgrading, overflows, armored stream crossings, rolling dips, and water bars are all meant to mitigate water’s erosive force. Increasing the water and sediment processing capabilities of roads and road infrastructure can prevent large cut-and-fill failures and the movement of sediment downstream. Trash racks and storm patrols can be used to reduce culvert blockages that may result in road failure and increased risk to downstream flooding and sediment deposition.

Channel treatments may be utilized to prevent downstream flooding and debris flows. In-channel structures are designed to reduce the rate at which water flows which allows sediment to settle out. As these structures decay, sediment is gradually released downstream. Debris that is currently in the channel may be removed to reduce the likelihood that it will become mobilized during a flood. Temporary dams constructed of straw, logs, or rocks are the most common examples.

Implementing these types of projects often requires professional guidance from a State or private consultant. There will likely be many private landowners that will require financial assistance to implement these activities as well as. Both public and private infrastructure (i.e. culverts, bridges, road surfaces, etc.) will be

29 Robichaud, Peter R.; Beyers, Jan L.; Neary, Daniel G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 85 p. 89 affected which can impact the economy of Stevens County. Correcting these issues as soon as possible can reduce the impact on local citizens in the region.

Vulnerability

Table 4.19 Overall Wildland Fire Significance Summary

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Northport Town

Town of Springdale Town

ConservationDistrict NETri

Wildland Fire High High Medium Medium Low High High High High High

Vulnerability - Loss Estimations Wildland fires, big and small, are dangerous to both Stevens County residents and emergency response personnel. Wildland fire suppression activities have a very high frequency of injuries, such as heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation, and have caused numerous deaths nationwide. Fire events in Stevens County typically result in a multi-department and agency response effort; thus, coordinating activities and ensuring everyone’s safety is paramount.

Residents with property in the path of wildland fire will likely suffer the greatest impacts through loss of structures and/or the value of any timber or agricultural crops on their land. Many fires require an evacuation of nearby residences to ensure the safety of citizens. Evacuation procedures require the coordination of law enforcement and fire service organizations and may involve temporary sheltering in extreme cases.

Stevens County, like most areas, has sensitive populations, such as elderly residents and children, who may be affected by air quality during a wildland fire. Smoke and particulates can severely degrade air quality, triggering health problems. In areas heavily impacted by smoke, people with breathing problems might need additional services from doctors or emergency rooms.

Commerce in Stevens County and the rest of the region may also be interrupted by wildland fires. Transportation corridors will likely be temporarily closed or slowed due to a fire burning in the area. Heavy smoke from a wildfire several miles away could be dense enough to make travel unsafe on roadways.

The environmental impacts from a fire are dependent on the vegetation present and the intensity of the fire. Most of the rangeland and forest ecosystems present in Stevens County are adapted to periodic fire events and benefit from occasional, low intensity burns. On the other hand, overcrowded forest conditions or over mature stands of sage brush will likely burn much more intensely than occurred historically. These types of fires tend to result in a high rate of mortality in the vegetation and often adversely impact soil conditions. High intensity fires are also much more dangerous and difficult to suppress.

Stevens County is actively pursuing funds to help with wildland fire mitigation projects and public education programs. While mitigation efforts will significantly improve the probability of a structure’s survivability, no amount of mitigation will guarantee survival.

90

It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Stevens County due to wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, man-made and ecological, will be at risk. However, one can draw conclusions from the average costs to suppress a wildland fire. Using information from the National Interagency Fire Center’s website30, there were 71,499 wildland fires that federal agencies responded to in 2017. The cost to suppress these fires totaled $2,918,165,000 which averages out to approximately $40,814 per ignition. Large wildland fires can cost hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to suppress.

Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire-resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures and infrastructure located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the appropriate resources, but they can also be the most destructive.

Wildfires can affect local medical facilities (Colville and Chewelah) by restricting travel in and out of the County for helicopter/fixed wing medical transport and ground transport to and from the area.

Agricultural producers within the Conservation District jurisdiction can lose resources and access to land that is critical for their economic sustainability. Some examples of this include loss of timber, loss of fences, the need to replant range and suspension of Federal grazing leases. Reduced air quality can reduce the amount of time work can be done outside and can negatively impact livestock. Some of the impacts can carry on for years.

Wildland fire can impact residents and landowners throughout the County. The wildfires themselves have a large impact on landowners in the immediate vicinity of the fire through loss of resources (timber, rangeland, etc.), structures, and displacement. They can also impact local government operations, economy, emergency services, and area residents by affecting air quality, travel corridors and other types of indirect impacts.

Second-Order Hazard Events

Wildland fires can be caused naturally by lightning or by various technological sources. Wildland fire can also be a secondary effect of another type of hazard. The following chart outlines the interconnection between wildland fire and other types of hazard events. Areas with high structure density could experience vast structure to structure ignitions during a wildland fire.

Table 4.20 Second-Order Hazards Related to Wildland Fire Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects Severe Weather Structural/Urban Fire Drought Civil Unrest Earthquake Landslide Transportation Systems Transportation Systems Hazardous Materials Power Outage Structural/Urban Fire

30 National Interagency Fire Center website. Federal Firefighting Costs (Suppression Only). https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf. Accessed July, 2015. 91

Drought

Description

The following section was largely taken from the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan.31

Drought is a prolonged period of reduced precipitation severe enough to reduce soil moisture, water and snow levels below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and economic systems. Droughts are a natural part of the climate cycle.

Unlike most states, Washington has a statutory definition of drought (Revised Code of Washington Chapter 43.83B.400). According to state law, an area is in a drought condition when:

• The water supply for the area is below 75 percent of normal. • Water uses and users in the area will likely incur undue hardships because of the water shortage. Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, depending upon its severity, although it typically does not result in loss of life or damage to real property, as do other natural disasters.

Unlike most disasters, droughts occur slowly but may last a long time. On average, the nationwide annual economic impacts of drought – between $6 billion and $8 billion annually in the United States – are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They occur primarily in the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.

The Washington State’s climate and ecology are largely shaped by the interactions that occur between seasonally varying weather patterns and the region’s mountain ranges. Approximately two-thirds of the region’s precipitation occurs in October-March. Much of this precipitation is captured in the region’s mountains. Unlike other parts of the country, snow- rather than man –made reservoirs- is the dominant form of water storage, storing water from the winter and releasing it in spring and early summer, when economic, environmental, and recreational demands for water are greatest throughout the state.

The amount of snow that collects in Washington’s mountains largely depends on both precipitation and the temperature during winter months. The El Niño – Southern Oscillation (El Niño/ La Niña) events that occur in the Pacific Ocean affect Washington’s winter weather and play a role in whether the region experiences a drought. In El Niño years, winters tend to be drier and temperatures tend to be warmer, the result is lower springtime snowpack and lower stream flow during spring and summer in snowmelt driven rivers.

History

Washington state has experienced several droughts that have lasted longer than a single season. The two worst on record occurred in 1977 and 2001. The most recent widespread event occurred in 2005. In 2015, the region experienced below average snowpack leading into summer where extended periods of high

31 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2012. Washington State Emergency Management Division. Available online at: https://mil.wa.gov/other-links/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan. Accessed May 2018. 92 temperatures contributed to many large wildland fires.32 The 2015 drought also led to a reduction in crop yields and quality.33

The widespread nature of droughts affects all the adopting jurisdictions in the County and therefore a specific history for each is not needed.

Probability and Magnitude

“At this time, reliable forecasts of drought are not attainable for temperate regions of the world more than a season in advance. However, based on a 100-year history with drought, the state as a whole can expect severe or extreme drought at least 5 percent of the time in the future, with most of eastern Washington experiencing severe or extreme drought about 10 to 15 percent of the time.”30

Agriculture is a vital part of Stevens County’s economy. Some croplands in Stevens County are irrigated. Prolonged drought, two or more winters of below normal precipitation combined with extreme summer heat, may cause reduced irrigation quotas resulting in some crop loss. Drought can affect the agricultural industry in a number of ways:

• It reduces crop production, sometimes for several years. • It reduces availability of food on rangeland for grazing animals, which may result in premature withdrawal of livestock from the range with an eventual sharp increase in forage expense. • It eliminates jobs in the field, at food processing plants and in affiliated facilities. • It reduces availability of relatively inexpensive hydropower for farmers, processors, and storage facilities, increasing their reliance on more expensive energy sources. • It increases shipping costs for some segments of the industry. For example, wheat growers may have to use truck and rail transport for a portion of their crop if the level of the Snake and Columbia Rivers become too low for barge traffic. The impact of drought varies by area, by crop, and by the status of the irrigation water right holder (junior or senior). Loss of water is far more damaging to perennial crops, such as fruit trees, grapes, hops, and asparagus, than to annual crops because it takes perennials several years to return to normal production. Reducing irrigation on annuals such as corn, peas, and other vegetables not only results in loss of a crop for a year, but it also may result in the loss of the food-processing infrastructure because of lack of product or higher costs for hydropower or other energy source.

Drought affects more than Stevens County farms and ranches. It also can affect availability and cost of hydropower and of shipping capacity for crops dependent on water transport. The cost of hydropower is critical to food processors; from 30 to 40 percent of the cost of processing and cold storage is for energy. Higher energy costs caused by drought remove local food processors’ competitive edge. Low water flow in the Columbia River can present problems for wheat growers, since more than 60 percent of their crop moves by barge. Lack of dredging combined with low river levels reduces capacity of barge transportation down river, forcing growers to use higher-cost alternatives such as trucking and rail.

32 The 2015 drought in Washington State: a harbinger of things to come? Marlier et al 2017. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 11. 33 Sandison D I 2017 2015 Drought and Agriculture(Pullman, WA: Washington State Academy of Sciences). 93

Vulnerability

Table 4.20 Overall Drought Significance Summary

Northport

Hazard

District

CountyHealth

-

Cityof Colville

Fire District Fire #1

Stevens County Stevens County Stevens

Town of Marcus Town

Cityof Chewelah

City of Kettle Cityof Kettle Falls

Town of Town

Town of Springdale Town

ConservationDistrict NETri

Drought Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium Low Low Low Vulnerability - Loss Estimations Stevens County is not considered to be one of the Counties most vulnerable to drought according to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan (Figure 4.9). Vulnerability to drought is affected by (among other things) population growth and shifts, urbanization, demographics, technology, water use trends, government policy, social behavior, environmental awareness, and economic ability to endure a drought. These factors evolve, and a community’s vulnerability to drought may rise or fall in response to these changes. For example, increasing and shifting populations put greater pressure on water and other natural resources – more people need more water. For the State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, a County is most vulnerable to drought if it meets at least five of the following seven criteria:

• History of severe or extreme drought conditions: o The County must have been in serious or extreme drought at least 10-15 percent of the time from 1895 to 1995. • Demand on water resources based on: o Acreage of irrigated cropland. The acreage of the County’s irrigated cropland must be in top 20 in the state. o Percentage of harvested cropland that is irrigated. The percentage of the County’s harvested cropland that is irrigated must be in top 20 in the state o Value of agricultural products. The value of the County’s crops must be in the top 20 in the state. o Population growth greater than the state average. The County’s population growth in 1990 – 2000 must be greater than state average of 21.2 percent. • A County’s inability to endure the economic conditions of a drought, based on: o The County’s median household income being less than 75 percent of the state median income of $45,776 in 1999. o The County being classified as economically distressed in 2003 because its unemployment rate was 20 percent greater than the state average from January 2000 through December 2002.

94

Figure 4.9 Washington Counties Most At-Risk and Vulnerable to Drought.

This profile will not attempt to estimate potential losses to County or City facilities due to drought. This hazard poses little threat to people and the built environment but can pose significant damage to the County’s economy.

Drought can impact landowners within the Conservation District boundaries by causing a reduction in the water available for farmland irrigation and reduce the productivity of rangeland which both reduce the viability of agriculture producers.

Drought is a widespread hazard that commonly affects all adopting jurisdictions either directly or indirectly.

Second-Order Hazard Events

Drought is caused by natural processes and can last for multiple seasons or years. Drought can also be a secondary effect of another type of hazard. The following chart outlines the interconnection between drought and other types of hazard events.

Table 4.20 Second-Order Hazards Related to Drought Events. Related Causal Events Related Effects Global Warming Crop Loss Severe Weather Water Supply Wildland Fire Hydroelectric Supply Civil Unrest

95

Section 5 – Mitigation Strategy

Planning Philosophy and Goals

Stevens County Planning Philosophy

This effort will utilize the best and most appropriate science from all partners, the integration of local and regional knowledge about man made and natural hazards, while meeting the needs of local citizens, the regional economy, the significance of this region to the rest of Washington and the Inland West.

Mission Statement

To make Stevens County residents, communities, state agencies, local governments, and businesses less vulnerable to the effects of natural and manmade hazards through the effective administration of hazard mitigation grant programs, hazard risk assessments, wise and efficient infrastructure hardening, and a coordinated approach to mitigation policy through federal, state, regional, and local planning efforts. Our combined prioritization will be the protection of people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems that contribute to our way of life and the sustainability of the local and regional economy.

Vision Statement

Promote a countywide hazard mitigation ethic through leadership, professionalism, and excellence, leading the way to a safe Stevens County.

Jurisdictional Planning and Mitigation Goals

As part of the 2017-18 revision process, each participating jurisdiction in Stevens County was asked to develop its own set of planning and mitigation goals to help reflect and keep track of individual priorities and changes in hazard vulnerability over time. During the first Planning Team meeting, the group discussed several overall short-term and long-term goals as well as goals for the planning process itself. Members of the Team were given a list of example goals statements and a blank goals worksheet to fill out and return. The goals of the adopting jurisdictions are the same as the County goals. The following section outlines the goals submitted by each jurisdiction.

Stevens County Planning Goals: 1. This planning process will involve planning for the natural hazards of flood, landslide, earthquake, severe weather, wildfire (incorporated from CWPP), and terrorism & civil unrest. 2. Additional hazards will be added to this plan as pre-mitigation planning is completed in the future. Hazardous materials, pandemic outbreak, dam failure, volcano, and avalanche have been identified as the highest priorities. 3. Prioritize the protection of people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems that contribute to our way of life and the sustainability of the local and regional economy. 4. Strategically locate and plan infrastructure projects that take into consideration the impacts of natural hazards. 96

5. Meet or exceed the requirements of a FEMA Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Stevens County Mitigation Goals:

1. Establish mitigation priorities and develop mitigation strategies in Stevens County. 2. Educate communities about the unique challenges of natural hazard preparedness in the county. 3. Identify and implement an integrated schedule of treatments targeted at achieving an elimination of lives lost, reduction in structures destroyed, infrastructure compromised, and unique ecosystems damaged that serve to sustain the way-of-life and economy of Stevens County and the region.

County Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Stevens County adopted the 2008 version of the MHMP through County Resolution. Stevens County is currently updating the County Comprehensive Plan and will incorporate information from this plan into any amended County Ordinances and other pertinent regulations.

Stevens County will however, utilize the information within this plan update when creating or updating other plans such as Comprehensive Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, Transportation Plan, and Natural Resource Management Plan. The information provided in this plan is based on the best available science and technology at the time of the update and should be utilized to update all other pertinent County plans, Ordinances, Policies, Regulations, etc. scheduled for update within five years from adoption of this Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Additional Potential Stevens County Mechanisms

1. Subdivision Ordinances 2. Zoning Ordinances 3. Departmental Budgets 4. Site Master Plans (wastewater treatment, landfill, etc.) 5. Personnel Training Programs

97

Table 5.1. Stevens County Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan YES/2015 This plan provides a risk assessment and a prioritized list of projects and mitigating actions regarding wildland fire. Comprehensive /Master Plan YES/2015 Concurrency YES The plan addresses responding to hazards while they happen but does not identify mitigating actions Economic Development Plan Emergency Operations Plan YES NO Stormwater Management Plan NO Would be accomplished through Title 3 funds Transportation Plan BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes YES Building Code ordinances are enforced Site plan review requirements YES Title 3, enforced thru site analysis LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance YES The ordinance is effective for reducing hazards and is adequately enforced Subdivision ordinance YES/2007 The ordinance is effective for reducing hazards and is adequately enforced Development regulations ordinance YES/2007 The ordinance is effective for reducing hazards and is adequately enforced ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements YES Planning Commission YES Reviews type 4 & 5 Planning Apps. & makes recommendations to Board of County Commissioners TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Building Official YES/FT Yes to all three questions

98

Community Planner YES/FT Yes to all three questions Emergency Manager YES/FT Yes to all three questions Engineer NO Floodplain Manager/Administrator NO GIS/HAZUS Coordinator YES Unsure of hazard training but yes to the other two questions Grant Writer NO FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Community Development Block Grant Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Impact fees for new development No Incur debt through special tax bond Incur debt through general obligation bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification YES Storm Ready certification Citizens group focused on emergency preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information programs (fire safety, household preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives Yes addressing disaster-related issues

99

Colville Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The City of Colville has updated several plans during the term of the current mitigation plans eligibility. The City of Colville adopted the 2008 version of the MHMP through City Resolution #08-08. The City of Colville is currently updating the City Comprehensive Plan and will incorporate information from this plan into any amended City Ordinances and other pertinent regulations.

The City of Colville will utilize the information within this plan update when creating or updating other plans. The City has recently updated multiple plans and therefore will not be updating those plans again during the lifecycle of this MHMP. The City of Colville incorporated pertinent information from the previous Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan into the 2011 update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The information provided in this plan is based on the best available science and technology at the time of the update and should be utilized to update all additional pertinent City plans, Ordinances, Policies, Regulations, etc. scheduled for update within five years from adoption of this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Table 5.2. City of Colville Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY

PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan Yes 2017 No, No, Yes Community Wildfire Protection Plan No No, No, Yes Comprehensive /Master Plan Yes 2011 Yes, No, Yes Continuity of Operations Plan Yes 2016 Emergency Response Guide / Yes Economic Development Plan No NA Emergency Operations Plan Yes 2015 Some, No, Yes (City of Colville Emergency Response Guide) Stormwater Management Plan Yes 1998 Needs update; Could be used for some mitigation. Transportation Plan No BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes Yes 2015 ICC AG Adopted by Washington State, Yes Site plan review requirements Yes 2017 Zoning Code, Yes LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts?

100

Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance Yes 2017 Yes, Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes 2012 Yes, Yes Zoning ordinance Yes 2015 Yes, Yes ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements Yes Roads, Fire, Police, Emergency Service’s Communication needs improvement Planning Commission Yes Legislative recommendations, Yes TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Building Official Yes FT No, Yes, No Community Planner Yes FT No, Yes, No Emergency Manager Yes FT Ongoing, needs improvement, No Engineer Yes PT Contract Engineering Services / Welch Comer Floodplain Manager/Administrator No No GIS/HAZUS Coordinator No No Grant Writer No No All department heads and Mayor do grant writing FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Yes No ?, Yes Community Development Block Grant Yes Yes – planning – infrastructure, Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific Yes ? purposes Impact fees for new development No No, Yes

101

Incur debt through special tax bond Yes Yes – repayment of projects by the City. These are LID 99-1 and Garden Homes LID 1999, 2013 Incur debt through general obligation Yes Yes. These are non-voted 60 bonds: 2010 Refunded revenue (pd. Off). 2003 Sewer bonds Revenue bond and 2007A and 2007B Sewer Revenue Bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification No It could help future mitigation activities Storm Ready certification No Citizens group focused on emergency No preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information Yes Yearly fire education and local schools programs (fire safety, household preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives No addressing disaster-related issues

102

Northeast Tri-County Health District Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The Northeast Tri-County Health District continues to update planning mechanisms frequently and will add the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan in future updates via reference.

Table 5.3. Northeast Tri-County Health District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan No Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Comprehensive /Master Plan Yes/2015 All Hazard Public Health Response Plan. Does not ID projects or mitigation actions Continuity of Operations Plan No Economic Development Plan No Emergency Operations Plan No Stormwater Management Plan No Transportation Plan No BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes Site plan review requirements Yes On-Site Wastewater Codes LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance Subdivision ordinance Yes Land use review for new subdivisions for adequacy of water and wastewater Zoning ordinance ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements Yes With other Local Health Jurisdictions within Region 9 Planning Commission TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? 103

Building Official Community Planner Emergency Manager Yes/PT Administer functions as Public Health Local Emergency Response Coordinator Engineer Floodplain Manager/Administrator GIS/HAZUS Coordinator Grant Writer FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Community Development Block Grant Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Impact fees for new development Incur debt through special tax bond Incur debt through general obligation bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification Storm Ready certification Citizens group focused on emergency preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information Yes Outreach efforts to prepare, mitigate, and respond to public health emergency events programs (fire safety, household (including fires, floods, drought, extended power outages, and epidemics preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues

104

Conservation District Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The Stevens County Conservation District does not have many pertinent planning mechanisms to incorporate this MHMP into. The Conservation District will refer to this Hazard Mitigation Plan when updating their annual and/or 5-year strategic plan.

Table 5.4. Stevens County Conservation District PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan N/A Community Wildfire Protection Plan N/A Comprehensive /Master Plan N/A Continuity of Operations Plan N/A Economic Development Plan N/A Emergency Operations Plan N/A Stormwater Management Plan N/A Transportation Plan N/A BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes N/A Site plan review requirements N/A LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance N/A Subdivision ordinance N/A Zoning ordinance N/A ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements N/A Planning Commission N/A TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? 105

Building Official N/A Community Planner N/A Emergency Manager N/A Engineer N/A Floodplain Manager/Administrator N/A GIS/HAZUS Coordinator NO Grant Writer FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding SCCD has capability to apply for, receive and implement capital improvement projects example would be manmade fish barrier replacements Community Development Block Grant Authority to levy taxes for specific Conservation Districts have RCW authority to work with county commissioners to assess purposes a rates and charges fee to private land through for programs to protect and improve natural resources Impact fees for new development Incur debt through special tax bond Incur debt through general obligation bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification Can provide assistance to assist communities become certified. Storm Ready certification Citizens group focused on emergency preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information One of the main functions of the district is public education to both adult and youth on programs (fire safety, household natural resource cycles and how man impacts. This can be focused on prevention and preparedness, responsible water use, recovery of natural disasters and how land management can reduce severity and etc) occurrence we have focused on flooding and wildfire for many years. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues 106

Kettle Falls Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The City of Kettle Falls will incorporate this Hazard Mitigation Plan into their 2020 update of the Transportation Plan and the 2021 Capital Improvements Plan.

Table 5.5. Kettle Falls Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan 2016-21 No Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Comprehensive /Master Plan 2012 No Continuity of Operations Plan No Economic Development Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Stevens County Plan Stormwater Management Plan No Transportation Plan 2015-20 BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes Yes International Building codes, yes Site plan review requirements Yes LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance No Subdivision ordinance No Zoning ordinance Yes Not effective for hazards, yes it is enforced ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements Yes Yes Planning Commission Yes Yes TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation?

107

FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Building Official PT No Community Planner No Emergency Manager No Engineer No Floodplain Manager/Administrator No GIS/HAZUS Coordinator No Grant Writer PT Contracted 40 hours per month FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Yes Replace/upgrade infrastructure, no Community Development Block Grant Yes Same as above Authority to levy taxes for specific No purposes Impact fees for new development No Incur debt through special tax bond No Incur debt through general obligation Yes Upgraded buildings, solar project, no bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification No Storm Ready certification No Citizens group focused on emergency No preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information Yes Fire Department during T & C days programs (fire safety, household preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives No addressing disaster-related issues 108

Chewelah Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The City of Chewelah has updated several plans during the term of the current mitigation plans eligibility. The City of Chewelah adopted the 2008 version of the MHMP through City Resolution #08-06. The City of Chewelah is currently updating the City Comprehensive Plan and will incorporate information from this plan into any amended City Ordinances and other pertinent regulations.

The City of Chewelah will utilize the information within this plan update when creating or updating other plans. The City has recently updated multiple plans and therefore will not be updating those plans again during the lifecycle of this MHMP. The information provided in this plan is based on the best available science and technology at the time of the update and should be utilized to update all additional pertinent City plans, Ordinances, Policies, Regulations, etc. scheduled for update within five years from adoption of this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Table 5.6. Chewelah Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan Yes No Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Comprehensive /Master Plan Yes Some Concurrency No Economic Development Plan No Emergency Operations Plan Yes Comp Plan Stormwater Management Plan No Transportation Plan Yes Comp Plan BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes Yes IBC, IRC, Yes Site plan review requirements Yes Yes LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance Yes Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Yes Development regulations ordinance Yes Yes ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. 109

Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements Yes Fire District #4/Stevens County Law Planning Commission No Hearing Examiner TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Building Official Yes Yes Community Planner PT Yes Emergency Manager N Yes Engineer PT Yes Floodplain Manager/Administrator Yes GIS/HAZUS Coordinator No Grant Writer Yes CA FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Yes Vehicles & Infrastructure / No Community Development Block Grant Yes Streets Authority to levy taxes for specific No purposes Impact fees for new development No Incur debt through special tax bond No Incur debt through general obligation No bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification No Storm Ready certification No Citizens group focused on emergency No preparedness, environmental protection, etc.

110

Public education/information Yes programs (fire safety, household preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives No addressing disaster-related issues

Stevens County Fire District #1 Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Stevens County Fire District #1 will continue to review the information contained within this Hazard Mitigation Plan and update existing policies and procedures whenever appropriate. They will continue to provide updated information at annual meetings with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team and Community Wildfire Protection Plan updates.

Table 5.10. Stevens County Fire District #1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment PLANNING and REGULATORY PLANS Yes/No Does the plan address hazards? Year Does the plan ID projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Capital Improvements Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes 2015 Yes, the plan addresses wildland fire and subsequent hazards (landslide, power outage, etc.) Yes, the plan identifies action items and can be used to implement them. Comprehensive /Master Plan Concurrency Economic Development Plan Emergency Operations Plan Stormwater Management Plan Transportation Plan BUILDING CODES, PERMITTING, Yes/No What type of codes? INSPECTIONS Are codes adequately enforced? Building Codes Site plan review requirements LAND USE PLANNING & ORDINANCES Yes/No Is the ordinance effective for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Floodplain ordinance Subdivision ordinance

111

Development regulations ordinance ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION Yes/No Describe capability. Is coordination effective? Mutual aid agreements Yes Agreements between all Stevens Co Fire Districts, DNR, BLM, NPS and USFS Planning Commission TECHNICAL STAFF Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Have skills/expertise been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Building Official Community Planner Emergency Manager Engineer Floodplain Manager/Administrator GIS/HAZUS Coordinator Grant Writer FINANCIAL FINANCIAL Yes/No Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Community Development Block Grant Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Impact fees for new development Incur debt through special tax bond Incur debt through general obligation bonds EDUCATION and OUTREACH PROGRAM / ORGANIZATION Access / Describe program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Eligibility Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? (Yes/No) Firewise Communities certification Storm Ready certification

112

Citizens group focused on emergency preparedness, environmental protection, etc. Public education/information programs (fire safety, household preparedness, responsible water use, etc) Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues

113

Marcus Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The Town of Marcus is a small community that relies on the larger neighboring communities and the County for resources and guidance. They continue to provide input during planning team meetings and incorporate this Hazard Mitigation Plan into their relevant planning mechanisms where appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvements Plan, and Economic Development Plan were all updated in 2015 and will likely be updated during the next planning cycle of this Hazard Mitigation Plan (2025).

Table 5.11. Town of Marcus Local Mitigation Capability Assessment

114

115

116

117

118

Administration and Implementation of Action Items Critical to the implementation of this Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan will be the identification and implementation of an integrated schedule of action items. These action items are targeted at achieving an elimination of lives lost, a reduction in structures destroyed or compromised, and the preservation of unique ecosystems that serve to sustain the way of life and economic stability in Stevens County, Washington. Since there are many management agencies and thousands of private landowners in this area, it is reasonable to expect that differing schedules of adoption will be made and varying degrees of compliance will be observed across all ownerships.

All risk assessments were made based on the conditions existing during 2018; thus, the recommendations in this section have been made considering those conditions. However, the components of risk and the preparedness of the County’s resources are not static. It will be necessary to fine-tune this Plan’s recommendations annually to adjust for changes in the components of risk, population density changes, infrastructure modifications, and other factors.

Prioritization of Action Items

The prioritization process includes a special emphasis on benefit-cost analysis review. The process reflects that a key component in funding decision is a determination that the project will provide an equivalent or more in benefits over the life of the project when compared with the costs. Projects will be administered by local jurisdictions with overall coordination provided by the Stevens County Emergency Management Manager. County Commissioners and the elected officials of all jurisdictions have evaluated opportunities and established their own unique priorities to accomplish mitigation activities where existing funds and resources are available and there is community interest in implementing mitigation measures. If no federal funding is used in these situations, the prioritization process may be less formal. Often the types of projects a county can afford to do on their own are in relation to improved codes and standards, department planning and preparedness, and education. These types of projects may not meet the traditional project model, selection criteria, and benefit-cost model. Stevens County will use this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as guidance when considering pre-disaster mitigation proposals brought before the Board of Commissioners by department heads, city officials, fire districts, and local civic groups. When federal or state funding is available for hazard mitigation, there are usually requirements that establish a rigorous benefit-cost analysis as a guiding criterion in establishing project priorities. Stevens County understands the basic federal grant program criteria which will drive the identification, selection, and funding of the most competitive and worthy mitigation projects. FEMA’s three grant programs (the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program) that offer federal mitigation funding to state and local governments all include the benefit-cost and repetitive loss selection criteria. The prioritization of new projects and deletion of completed projects will occur annually and be facilitated by the Stevens County Emergency Management Manager and the joint Planning Team. All mitigation activities, recommendations, and action items mentioned in this document are dependent on available funding and staffing.

119

Prioritization Scheme

All the action items and project recommendations made in this Plan were prioritized by each respective jurisdiction in coordination with their governing body. Each jurisdiction’s representative on the Planning Team met with their governing bodies and prioritized their own list of projects and mitigation measures through a group discussion and voting process. Projects were ranked on a “High”, “Moderate”, or “Low” scale with emphasis on need, project feasibility and the benefit/cost correlation. Once completed, the individual jurisdiction’s rankings were discussed and approved at the Team level.

Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategies The following tables outline all the participating jurisdictions’ mitigation strategies for at least the next five- year period. All the action items from the previous plan were carried into the updated mitigation strategies; however, the Team thoroughly reviewed and discussed each proposed project, and in some cases, chose to revise the action item or delete it altogether. The “2019 Status” column in each table highlights the current state of each Action Item.

Stevens County Annex

Safety & Policy

Hazard mitigation efforts must be supported by a set of policies and regulations at the county level that maintain a solid foundation for safety and consistency. The recommendations enumerated here serve that purpose. Because these items are regulatory in nature, they will not necessarily be accompanied by cost estimates. These recommendations are policy related in nature and therefore are recommendations to the appropriate elected officials; debate and formulation of alternatives will serve to make these recommendations suitable and appropriate.

120

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.a. Develop a plan All Hazards Lead: Stevens County 2019 Identify teaching and deliver public Mitigation Goals Commissioners and partners in public education education programs on Addressed: 2 Emergency program Hazard Mitigation. Management 2019 Locate and adopt Support: Northeast Tri- Jurisdictions: All training materials appropriate Priority: High County Health District, Potential Funding: for local conditions Washington State Emergency In Progress 2020 Develop budgets and University Cooperative Management Institute acquire funding for desired Extension, Residential programs Conservation District, Educational Program Spokane Tribe of (#10) 2023 Begin implementation Indians, local in schools and through adult community groups, and education programs. federal and state agencies. 5.12.b. Increase County Flood Lead: Stevens County 2020-2021 Update Flood and city participation Mitigation Goals Commissioners and Ordinance in County GMA in National Flood Addressed: 1 & 2 incorporated cities of 2020-23: Develop a program Insurance Program and Colville, Kettle Falls, Jurisdiction: County, to educate and encourage work towards attaining Chewelah, Marcus, Cities and Towns participation in National CRS discounts. Springdale, and Priority: High No Progress Potential Funding: Flood Insurance Program. Northport. Hazard Mitigation Participate in the Community Support: Stevens Grant Program (#13) Rating System to lower the County Public Works costs of National Flood and County Land Insurance Program Services premiums. 5.12.c. Recommend All Hazards Lead: County Can be completed in three creating County Mitigation Goals Commissioners years and then on-going Ordinance to improve Addressed: 2 & 3 Support: County Land pending funding to rural signage of roads implement the project. Services, County Jurisdiction: Stevens and house numbers. Estimate $40,000 for signs Emergency County Also plan and Priority: High Management, County IT and posting. In Progress Potential Funding: implement public and GIS, County Need to develop numbers Assistance to education strategy Sheriff’s Department alphabet unnamed streets. Firefighters Grant (#1) regarding the (Dispatch), Spokane importance of rural Tribe of Indians, and signage. Stevens County Fire Districts #1-13. 121

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.d. Consider All Hazards Lead: County Office of Seek out funding during completing risk Mitigation Goals Emergency 2020-21 for additional assessments for man- Addressed: 1 & 3 Management Jurisdiction: All funding to complete other made/ technological hazards included in the Support: County No Progress Potential Funding: hazards identified in Commissioners Hazard Mitigation Hazard Summary, but not Hazard Summary. Priority: High Grant (#13) completed in this document.

5.12.e. Incorporate the All Hazards Lead: Stevens County 2020 Incorporate the goals Stevens County Hazard Mitigation Goals Land Services Jurisdiction: County, and projects outlined in this Mitigation Plan into the Addressed: 1 Department, County Cities, Towns plan into the Comprehensive Stevens County and Emergency Plan by amendment. No Progress City Comprehensive Management Potential Funding: Plans where/when Jurisdiction Annual Priority: High Support: County Budget applicable. Commissioners

5.12.f. Consider Flood Lead: Stevens County 2019 Begin researching developing stream Mitigation Goals Commissioners funding and interest in reach-based mitigation Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Stevens development of project in plans for residences County Land Services, each reach area. already in the Conservation District, 2021 Acquire funding and floodplain and channel Priority: High Stevens County Jurisdiction: All begin outlining project. migration zones. This Planning Department, Potential Funding: 2021 Begin acquiring could include dredging Spokane Tribe of No Progress Pre-Disaster Mitigation information and developing or channel Indians, U.S. Fish & Program (#20) project. improvement projects Wildlife Service, that also improve Stevens County 2023 Inform affected ecological functions Emergency landowners, County, and through improved Management and cities of the results of the hydro-morphology. interested community project and potential organizations. recommendations.

122

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.g. Incorporate this All Hazards Lead: Stevens County 2019-20 Update Emergency Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Goals Public Utility District, Jurisdiction: County, Plans to incorporate the into the Public Utility Addressed: 1 NETCHD, Fire Districts NETCHD and County Hazard Mitigation Plan. District’s Emergency and each City Council Fire Districts Preparedness and Support: Stevens No Progress Contingency Plan, Potential Funding: Priority: High County Emergency Local jurisdiction NETCHD Emergency Management Plan, Fire District plans annual budget and various City plans. 5.12.h. Request FEMA Flood Lead: County 2019 Contact FEMA and update of Flood Mitigation Goals Emergency Manager request updated assessment Insurance Rate Maps Addressed: 1, 2 & 3 Support: County Jurisdiction: All and maps. (1990) to improve the Commissioners’, No Progress Potential Funding: safety of at-risk County Land Services Hazard Mitigation residents. Priority: High Grant Program (#13)

5.12.i. Encourage Flood Earthquake, Lead: Stevens County 2021 Continue to work with enforcement of all Wildfire Commissioners and the County and cities as well Jurisdiction: County, International Building Mitigation Goals City Councils as the public to actively Cities and Towns Codes as adopted by Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Stevens enforce Washington’s IBC. the State of County Fire Districts 1- In Progress Potential Funding: Washington. 13, County Local jurisdiction Priority: High Commissioners’ annual budget

5.12.j. Consider All Hazards Lead: City of Colville N/A funding for the Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: City of development of a Addressed: 1 & 3 Colville Comprehensive Completed Emergency Potential Funding: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Management Plan for Priority: High Colville. Program (#20)

123

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.k. Consider All Hazards Lead: County Public 2019 Research potential funding for the Mitigation Goals Works Jurisdiction: Stevens funding options and form a development of a Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Tri-County County Team to develop the plan. Stevens County Post- Public Health District, No progress Potential Funding: 2021 Present completed plan Disaster Debris County Commissioners’ Pre- Disaster Mitigation to County Commissioners Management Plan for Priority: High Program (#20) and City Councils. Solid Waste created from a hazard event. 5.12.l. Conduct an Flood, Wildfire, Lead: County 2020 Conduct assessment assessment of the Earthquake Emergency Manager and necessary feasibility Jurisdiction: Stevens singlefeed power line Mitigation Goals and Utility Company studies. County in County. Addressed: 1 & 3 2021-22 Implement proposed No Progress Potential Funding: improvements. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Program (#20)

5.12.m. Improve All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Identify potential Telecom 911 system by Mitigation Goals Emergency Manager Jurisdiction: Stevens problems and/or weaknesses addressing power Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: 911, County County and develop work plan to disruption, address issues. Sheriff’s Office, IT In Progress maintenance, and Potential Funding: monitoring issues. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Program (#20)

5.12.n: Encourage the Wildfire Lead: County Jurisdiction: Stevens 2019 Develop informational use of firesafe building Commissioner’s Office brochures to be included with Mitigation Goals County materials in high-risk Support: Stevens building permits and identify WUI areas on existing Addressed: 3 Potential Funding: staff that would benefit from County Fire Districts #1- No Progress Wildland-Urban structures and new 13, and city fire defensible space training. construction. Interface Community Priority: High departments. and Rural Fire 2020 Send identified staff to educational workshops.

Assistance (#26)

124

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.o: Begin Wildfire Lead: County Building 2019 Develop informational distributing “Code of Department pamphlets to be included the West” pamphlets Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: Stevens with building permits. Addressed: 2 Support: County County with building permit Commissioners 2020 Begin including No Progress requests. Potential Funding: pamphlets with building Rural Fire Assistance Priority: permits. (#21) Medium

5.12.p: Rural signage Wildfire Lead: County Public 2019 Identify and prioritize (road signs & house Works roads that need signs. Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: Stevens numbers) Support: County County 2020 Purchase and install improvements across Addressed: 1 & 3 Planning Department, In Progress new signs and begin the County. Potential Funding: County Commissioners, Rural Fire Assistance campaign to encourage Priority: High and Stevens County (#21) residents to install hi-vis Fire Districts 1-13. house numbers.

5.12.q: Encourage new Wildfire Lead: County Planning 2019 Begin encouraging home and business Department residents and business Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: County, construction to install Support: County Cities and Towns owners to put powerlines underground power Addressed: 3 underground. Commissioner’s Office, In Progress lines. Potential Funding: Stevens County Public Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Utilities District, and Program (#20) utilities companies.

5.12.r: Incorporate the Wildfire Lead: Stevens County N/A Stevens County Commissioners Mitigation Goals Community Wildfire Support: Stevens Jurisdiction: All Protection Plan into Addressed: 1 & 3 County Planning Completed the Stevens County Potential Funding: Department. N/A Comprehensive Plan, Priority: High where applicable.

125

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.s: Strongly Wildfire Lead: County Planning 2019 Develop informational encourage fire-safe Department brochures to be included with development of rural Mitigation Goals building permits and identify Support: County Jurisdiction: County, subdivisions (see Addressed: 2 & 3 staff that would benefit from Commissioner’s Office, Cities, Towns & Fire FIREWISE or similar defensible space training. County Building **Flowery Trail HOA is Districts programs for specific Department, Stevens 2020 Send identified staff to Priority: High currently recognized. Potential Funding: recommendations). County Fire Districts #1- educational workshops.

Rural Fire Assistance 13, city fire (#21) departments, developers, and interested residents.

126

Table 5.12. Action Items for Safety and Policy. 2019 Status Mitigated Jurisdiction & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Action Items & Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) Planning Horizon &Priority • Complete 5.12.t: Encourage land Wildfire Lead: County 2019 Meet with state and management agencies Commissioners federal land agencies to to implement a fuels Mitigation Goals Support: County Land discuss concerns and reduction program at Addressed:3 Services, incorporated develop action plan. recreational or high cities of Colville, Jurisdiction: County, use areas and Chewelah, Kettle Falls, Cities, Towns and Fire trailheads. Priority: High Marcus, Springdale, Districts No Progress and Northport, USFS, Potential Funding: DNR, BLM, FWS, NPS, Local jurisdiction Spokane Indian annual budget Reservation, and Stevens County Fire Districts #1-13, and city fire departments. 5.12.u: Update City of All Hazards Lead: Colville City 2019 Review current plans Colville Emergency Council and identify gaps. Update as Response Guide to be Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: City of Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Stevens Colville needed. consistent with County Emergency No Progress Stevens County CEMP Management Potential Funding: and HMP. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Program (#20)

5.12.v: Update City of Severe Weather & Lead: Colville City 2019 Review current plan Colville Storm Drain Flooding Council and update as needed. Plan. Jurisdiction: City of Mitigation Goals Support: Stevens Colville Addressed: 1 & 3 County Emergency Management No Progress Potential Funding: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Program (#20)

127

People and Structures

The protection of people and structures will be tied together closely as the loss of life in the event of a hazard is generally linked to a person who could not, or did not, flee a structure threatened by a hazard. Many of the recommendations in this section will define a set of criteria for implementation while others will be rather specific in extent and application.

Proposed Activities Table 5.13. Action Items for People and Structures. 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Planning Mitigated Responsible • No Progress • Potential Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Organization • In Progress Funding Addressed &Priority • Complete (Appendix 7) 5.13.a. Assess and All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Assess which hardwire necessary Mitigation Goals Emergency Manager buildings in the County will government Addressed: 3 Support: County require alternative power buildings, Commissioners, County during emergencies. emergency facilities, Building Department, 2019 Conduct benefit-cost water supply and Priority: High Sheriff’s Office, County assessment of providing wastewater PUD, Spokane Tribe of portable power. facilities, and Indians and incorporated community shelters 2020 Secure grant funding cities of Colville, Kettle Jurisdiction: All through Pre-Disaster for use with a Falls, Chewelah, Marcus, In Progress portable generator. Potential Funding: Mitigation grants or others Springdale, and for the wiring of buildings Northport. and purchase of portable generators with capacity to power needed buildings. 2021 Implement wiring changes to allow quick connection of off-grid power. 5.13.b. Evaluate Flood Lead: County 2020 Identify at risk structures located in Mitigation Goals Emergency Manager, structures and conduct the flood zone to County Land Services, assessments. Addressed: 3 Jurisdiction: County, determine measures City of Colville, City of Cities & Towns 2021 Research drone for needed for Chewelah, and Town of assessments. No Progress Potential Funding: protection (elevation Priority: High Springdale Pre-Disaster Mitigation 2022 Research potential of structure, barrier, Support: Stevens wet protection, etc). Program (#20) options and obtain funding County Commissioner’s, to implement chosen Northeast Tri-County alternative. Health District

128

Table 5.13. Action Items for People and Structures. 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Planning Mitigated Responsible • No Progress • Potential Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Organization • In Progress Funding Addressed &Priority • Complete (Appendix 7) 5.13.c. Inspect Earthquake Lead: Stevens County 2021 Conduct suspected Mitigation Goals Land Services, County assessments of older unreinforced Public Works and City masonry buildings, Addressed: 3 Jurisdiction: County, masonry buildings Building Officials particularly those being Cities & Towns for seismic stability Support: Stevens used for public purposes. No Progress Potential Funding: and potential Priority: Low County Commissioners’ 2022 Based on Pre-Disaster Mitigation retrofitting needs. assessment; begin Program (#20) researching potential options for retrofitting those in need. 5.13.d. Inspect Severe Weather Lead: Stevens County All schools are up to code schools and other Mitigation Goals Building Department but should continue to be public buildings for Addressed: 3 Jurisdiction: County, inspected during snow-load Cities & Towns particularly heavy snow In Progress resistance and Potential Funding: events. retrofit as Priority: Low School budget necessary.

5.13.e. Provide pre- Severe Weather Lead: Colville City 2019 Develop inspection inspections of Mitigation Goals Council protocol and secure commercial and Addressed: 3 Support: Colville Public Jurisdiction: City of funding. government Works, Stevens County Colville 2020 Begin inspecting buildings and Emergency Management In Progress Potential Funding: facilities develop a database Priority: Low of structural Pre-Disaster Mitigation integrity, fire risk Program (#20) and security concerns. 5.13.f. Work with Severe Weather Lead: Colville City 2019 Work with Stevens County to plan for Mitigation Goals Council Jurisdiction: City of County to identify all temporary housing. Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Stevens Colville potential facilities to provide temporary housing County Emergency In Progress Potential Funding: in the event of a disaster Management Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: Low Program (#20) 2020 Establish MOAs with the identified facilities

129

Infrastructure

Significant infrastructure refers to the communications, transportation (road and rail networks), energy transport supply systems (gas and power lines), and water supply that service a region or a surrounding area. All these components are important to the Okanogan Highlands region, and to Stevens County specifically. These networks accomplish the goal of protecting people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems. Without supporting infrastructure, a community’s structures may be protected, but the economy and way of life lost. As such, a variety of components will be considered here in terms of management philosophy, potential policy recommendations, and on-the-ground activities.

Proposed Activities Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.a. Review all Flood Lead: County Public 2019-20 Review road road profiles which Mitigation Goals Works surfaces and complete are within flood Addressed: 3 Support: County Jurisdiction: County, engineering study. zones to determine Commissioners and Cities and Towns 2021 Create a priority list of degree of rise Washington Department No Progress Potential Funding: modifications to road needed to elevate it Priority: High of Transportation. Pre-Disaster Mitigation surfaces. above the flood Program (#21) zone. Work with various road departments to schedule changes. 5.14.b. Obtain FEMA All Hazards Lead: County 2020 Purchase signs and “Emergency Mitigation Goals Commissioners and arrange convenient and Evacuation Route” Addressed: 3 County Emergency accessible storage signs to be posted Management locations. on primary and Support: Stevens secondary access Priority: Jurisdiction: All Medium County Fire Districts #1- routes during an #12, city fire Potential Funding: No progress emergency. departments, County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Public Works, and Program (#21) incorporated cities of Colville, Kettle Falls, Chewelah, Marcus, Springdale, and Northport.

130

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.c. Develop a All Hazards Lead: Stevens County 2019 Conduct assessment countywide Mitigation Goals Conservation District of watersheds in the County prioritized list of Addressed: 1 Support: County Land to determine those in need watersheds that Services, County Jurisdiction: of stabilization. Make require stream bank Commissioners’, State Conservation District prioritized list based on and channel assessment. Priority: High and Federal Agencies In progress Potential Funding: stabilization and/or Pre-Disaster Mitigation 2020 Begin acquisition of restoration. Plan (#20) funding to implement projects. 2023: Begin implementation of high priority projects. 5.14.d. Conduct an Flood Lead: County Public No progress 2019 Obtain funding and assessment of Mitigation Goals Works conduct assessment. current storm water Addressed: 1 Support: County Land Jurisdiction: County, 2020 Research potential management system Services, County Cities & Towns options, acquire equipment, and develop Commissioners’, and implement chosen Potential Funding: solutions for Priority: High Incorporated cities of alternative. Pre-Disaster Mitigation upgrading to current Colville, Kettle Falls, Program (#20) standards. Chewelah, Marcus, Springdale, and Northport. 5.14.e. Continue All Hazards Lead: County In progress 2019 Develop annual work improvement of Mitigation Goals Emergency Manager Jurisdiction: County, plan for continuation of underground Addressed: 3 Support: County Public Cities & Towns improvements. fiberoptic cable Works, County Potential Funding: 2020 Prioritize projects and system to provide Commissioners’, WSU begin implementation redundancy in Capital Improvements Priority: High extension, County IT and budget process. phone lines. utility company.

131

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.f: Post Wildfire Lead: County Sheriff’s 2019 Purchase signs. “Emergency Office Jurisdiction: County, Mitigation Goals Support: County Public 2019-2023 Place signs Evacuation Route” Cities, Towns & Fire where/when as needed signs along the Addressed: 1 & 3 Works, County Districts Commissioner’s, No Progress during an event identified primary Potential Funding: Stevens County Fire and secondary Priority: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Districts #1-13, and city access routes. Medium Program (#20) fire departments.

5.14g: Create and Wildfire Lead: County Sheriff’s 2019 Determine priority maintain defensible Office and Washington facilities and acquire space around critical Mitigation Goals DNR funding. Addressed:3 infrastructure Support: County 2021-2023 Hire contractor including, but not Commissioners, to conduct fuels reduction limited to Priority: High incorporated cities of Jurisdiction: County, work around identified communication Colville, Chewelah, Cities, Towns & Fire facilities and dispose of sites, community Kettle Falls, Marcus, Districts slash. shelters, Springdale, and No Progress government Potential Funding: This activity will require Northport, Spokane Western States Fire maintenance as vegetation buildings (city, Indian Reservation, County, State, and Managers WUI Grant re-establishes Stevens County Public Program (#25) federal), petroleum Utilities District, and storage sites, various facility/utility hospitals, water owners. storage sites, and PUD Service Stations. 5.14.h: Identify and Wildfire Lead: County Sheriff’s 2019 Identify potential Office Jurisdiction: Fire indicate safety Districts & County locations and gain pre- zones and/or rally Mitigation Goals Support: County approval (MOA) from points for evacuees. Addressed: 1 & 3 Commissioner’s, DNR, Potential Funding: landowner USFS, Stevens County No Progress Wildland Urban Fire Districts #1-13, and Interface Community Priority: High city fire departments. and Rural Fire Assistance (#26)

132

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.i: Access Wildfire Lead: County Public 2019 Identify and prioritize improvements of Works infrastructure needing to be bridges, cattle Mitigation Goals upgraded Support: County Fire Jurisdiction: County & guards, culverts, Addressed: 3 Districts, County Fire Districts 2020 Secure funding and and limiting road Commissioners, State of begin improvements No Progress Potential Funding: surfaces. Washington (Lands and Priority: High Pre-Disaster Mitigation Transportation), USFS,

Program (#20) DNR, Spokane Indian Reservation, and private landowners. 5.14.j: Access Wildfire Lead: County 2019 Acquire funding improvements Commissioners Jurisdiction: County & 2020-2021 Begin through roadside Mitigation Goals Addressed: 3 Support: County Public Fire Districts implementing fuel reduction fuels management Works, State of projects Potential Funding: throughout the Washington (Lands and No Progress Western States Fire county. Priority: Transportation), USFS, Managers WUI Grant Medium DNR, Spokane Indian

Program (#25) Reservation, NPS, and private landowners. 5.14.k: Individual Wildfire Lead: County Fire 2019 Acquire funding Fire Districts to Districts 2020-2021 Begin identify access Mitigation Goals Addressed: 3 Support: County Public implementing fuel reduction issues and Works, State of Jurisdiction: County & projects recommend Washington (Lands and Fire Districts improvements Priority: Transportation), USFS, through roadside Medium No Progress Potential Funding: DNR, Spokane Indian Western States Fire fuels management Reservation, NPS, and Managers WUI Grant and/or other private landowners. mitigation actions Program (#25) (e.g. bridge and culvert replacement).

133

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.l: Improve Wildfire Lead: County Sheriff’s Jurisdiction: County, 2019 Identify communications Office needs/weaknesses and Mitigation Goals Cities, Towns & Fire capability Support: National Park Districts plan for future needs throughout the Addressed: 3 Service, Bureau of No Progress 2020 Acquire funding and County. Potential Funding: Indian Affairs, Volunteer Fire purchase equipment Priority: Washington DNR, and Medium Department Assistance County Fire Districts. (#24)

5.14.m: Maintain Wildfire Lead: County Road 2019-2023 Identify/prioritize existing loop roads Mitigation Goals Department Jurisdiction: County & roads and implement throughout the Addressed: 3 Support: BLM, DNR, Fire Districts annual program to keep county that mitigate these roads passable. BIA, US Forest Service, No Progress Potential Funding: one-way-in/one-way and private landowners. out to prevent Priority: Rural Fire Assistance entrapment. Medium (#21)

5.14.n: Upgrade the Wildfire Lead: Flowery Trail 2019 Identify needs water supply system Community Mitigation Goals 2020 Secure funding of the Flowery Trail Support: local Fire Jurisdiction: County & Community to meet Addressed: 3 2021-2023 Hire contractor Protection District and Fire Districts and begin implementing recommendations of DNR. the local Fire Priority: No Progress Potential Funding: upgrades Protection District. Medium Rural Fire Assistance (#21)

134

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.o. Develop a All Hazards Lead: County 2019-Obtain funding and County Continuity of Mitigation Goals Commissioners identify essential county Operations (COOP) Addressed:1 & 3 Support: County services for COOP. Relocation Site, Information Services Establish off-site data which maintains an Department, County storage center in Chewelah Information Priority: High Emergency Management with back up servers. Technology (IT) Jurisdiction: Stevens 2020 Obtain funding and framework for all County build communication tower essential county No progress Potential Funding: on Colville Mountain with services. Pre-Disaster Mitigation data transmission radios. Program (#20) Backup all county essential services data to COOP Relocation Site. 2020 Obtain funding and develop COOP Relocation Site for essential county services. 5.14.p. Procure All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Acquire funding funding to develop Mitigation Goals Emergency Management Jurisdiction: Stevens 2019-2020 Begin Stevens County Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: County County establishing facility to Ambulance facility Information Services In progress Potential Funding: operate as an EOC during into an operable Department, County hazard events. EOC Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Emergency Management Program (#20)

5.14.q. Establish a All Hazards Lead: Colville City 2019 Identify facility or joint emergency Mitigation Goals Council location and acquire Jurisdiction: City of service building to Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: Stevens funding house Colville Fire County Emergency Colville 2019-2020 Begin Department, Fire Management No progress Potential Funding: establishing facility to District #3, backup Priority: High Pre-Disaster Mitigation operate as a joint County EOC and Program (#20) Emergency Service Colville Police building. Department

135

Table 5.14. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements. 2019 Status Action Items & Mitigated Jurisdiction & Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Hazard/Goals Potential Funding Organization • In Progress Addressed &Priority (Appendix 7) Complete 5.14.r. Address All Hazards Lead: Stevens County 2019 Identify issues, partial or full Mitigation Goals Emergency Management Jurisdiction: provide solutions and shutdown of 911 Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: County Fire Countywide acquire funding communications. Districts and No progress Potential Funding: 2019-2020 Begin incorporated cities Pre-Disaster Mitigation implementing repairs. Priority: High Program (#20)

Resource and Capability Enhancements

There are several resource and capability enhancements identified by the emergency response organizations in Stevens County. Additionally, many communities have identified additional resources and infrastructure needed to protect people and structures during natural and manmade hazards.

One important action item includes obtaining portable generators for use in government buildings, emergency facilities, and community shelters during power outages. For these buildings to accept a generator, they must first be hardwired specifically for this purpose. In Stevens County, the County jail, part of the Courthouse, 911 Center, Mount Carmel and St. Joseph’s Hospital, the Washington Department of Natural Resources facilities, the Loon Lake substation, and the Chewelah Peak and Monumental communications towers are among the few buildings currently hardwired for a generator. The American Red Cross maintains a list of emergency centers available throughout the County. This list is constantly changing and is somewhat dependent on the type of disaster that occurs. The Multi - Hazard Mitigation Planning Team feels that at least the primary emergency shelters should not only be hardwired to accept a generator but should also have a generator readily available to them.

136

Proposed Activities Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.a. Obtain All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Coordinate with Item portable generators Emergency Manager 5.12.a Mitigation Goals for use during power Support: Stevens 2020 Secure funding or outages and other Addressed: 3 County Commissioners, Jurisdiction: County, agreement for generator emergency Sheriff’s Office, Cities, Towns & Fire purchase or trade. situations (e.g. Priority: High Stevens County Fire Districts 2020 Determine where Hunters School, No Progress Districts #1-12, city fire generators will be stored

Potential Funding: County EOC, etc.). departments, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation and who will be responsible incorporated cities of Program (#20) for maintenance. Colville, Kettle Falls, Chewelah, Marcus, Springdale, and Northport. 5.15.b. Evaluate All Hazards Lead: County 2008 Obtain funding and location of Emergency Manager conduct assessment. emergency services Mitigation Goals Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: County 2009 Identify problem or headquarters, field Commissioners’, Jurisdiction: County weak areas and address offices, and storage Incorporated cities of Potential Funding: issues. Work with local facilities for Pre-Disaster Mitigation Priority: High Colville, Kettle Falls, governments and facility proximity to Chewelah, Marcus, Program (#20) owners to improve potential hazards, Springdale, and emergency response. particularly the flood Northport. zone.

137

Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.c. Enhance All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Summarize existing radio availability in Emergency Manager two-way radio capabilities the County, link into Mitigation Goals and limitations. Identify Addressed: 3 Support: Stevens existing dispatch, County Commissioners, costs to upgrade existing improve range equipment and locate Sheriff’s Office, County Jurisdiction: County, within the region, funding opportunities. IT, Spokane Tribe of Cities, Towns & Fire and conversion to Priority: High Indians, Stevens Districts 2020 Acquire and install consistent standard County Fire Districts In progress upgrades as needed. Potential Funding: of radio types or #12, city fire Pre-Disaster Mitigation obtain necessary departments, and Program (#20) components to link incorporated cities of between existing Colville, Kettle Falls, radio types. Chewelah, Marcus, Springdale, and Northport. 5.15.d. Obtain All Hazards Lead: Stevens County mobile repeater Emergency Manager, Jurisdiction: County, station with back-up Mitigation Goals Stevens County Cities, Towns & Fire power source. Addressed: 3 Dispatch Districts Complete Support: County Potential Funding: Priority: Commissioners’ Pre-Disaster Mitigation Medium Program (#20)

5.15.e. Establish a All Hazards Lead: County 2019 Begin researching medical clinic and Emergency Manager options and gaining local Mitigation Goals Jurisdiction: County ambulance service Support: Stevens support. in Hunters to Addressed: 3 Potential Funding: County Fire District #2 No progress 2020-21 Obtain needed provide better Volunteer Fire Department Assistance funding, training, and emergency services equipment. and care to this Priority: High (#24) area.

138

Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.f: Recruitment Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Research and retention of Fire Districts #1-13, and Jurisdiction: Fire options/alternatives to volunteer Mitigation Goals city fire departments. Districts recruitment and retention of Addressed: 1 firefighters. Support: County Potential Funding: volunteers Commissioners, No progress Staffing of Adequate 2020 Secure necessary Priority: High Wildland fire agencies Fire and Emergency funding to implement working with a broad Response Grant recruitment strategy base of County Program (#22) 2020-23 Implement strategy citizenry. 5.15.g: Establish and Wildfire Lead: County GIS Jurisdiction: County, 2019 Secure funding map onsite water Department Cities, Towns & Fire 2019-2020 Begin collecting sources such as Mitigation Goals Districts Addressed: 1 & 3 Support: County GPS locations hydrants or Commissioner’s Office, Potential Funding: underground No progress 2021 Develop maps for USFS, DNR, Stevens Wildland Urban distribution storage tanks and Priority: High County Fire Districts Interface Community drafting or dipping #1-13, and city fire and Rural Fire sites. departments. Assistance (#25) 5.15.h: Increase Wildfire Lead: Local 2019 Identify training needs training and community and secure funding Mitigation Goals capabilities of organizations, 2020-2023 Train volunteers firefighters. Addressed: 3 Washington DNR, Stevens County Fire Priority: High Districts #1-13, and city Jurisdiction: Fire fire departments. Districts

Support: County No progress Potential Funding: Emergency Manager, Volunteer Fire DNR, BLM, and USFS Department Assistance for wildland training (#24) opportunities and with the State Fire Marshall’s Office for structural firefighting training.

139

Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.i: Improve Wildfire Lead: County Fire 2019 Identify and prioritize safety equipment Districts Jurisdiction: Fire equipment needs and personal Mitigation Goals Support: County Districts Addressed: 3 Commissioner’s, USFS, 2020 Secure funding and protective In progress Potential Funding: begin purchasing needed equipment for all DNR, local community Volunteer Fire organizations, and city items Fire Districts in Priority: High Department Assistance Stevens County. fire departments. (#24)

5.15.j: Support the Wildfire Lead: County Fire 2019 Encourage the maintenance and/or Districts continuance of state and Mitigation Goals Support: County Jurisdiction: Fire enhancement of Districts federal firefighter support state and federal Addressed: 1 Commissioners, DNR, programs firefighting NPS, and city fire No progress Potential Funding: departments. Volunteer Fire programs (training Priority: High and equipment) Department Assistance (#24) resources in Stevens County. 5.15.k: Support the Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Identify needs acquisition of new Fire Districts #1-13, Jurisdiction: Fire Mitigation Goals DNR, and city fire 2020 Secure funding and and updated rolling Districts begin purchasing equipment stock and other Addressed: 1 & 3 departments. No progress Potential Funding: equipment for each Volunteer Fire fire district or Department Assistance Priority: High department in (#24)

Stevens County. 5.15.l: Facility, land, Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Identify land and and basic equipment Fire District #12 Jurisdiction: Fire secure funding Mitigation Goals for an additional Districts 2020 Purchase land and station near the Addressed: 1 & 3 No progress Potential Funding: hire a builder center of Fire Volunteer Fire 2021 Begin building District #12’s Priority: Department Assistance response area. Medium (#24) 2022 Purchase equipment

140

Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.m: Facility, Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Identify land and land, and basic Fire District #11 Jurisdiction: Fire secure funding Mitigation Goals equipment for three Districts 2020 Purchase land and additional satellite Addressed: 1 & 3 No progress Potential Funding: hire a builder stations in Fire Volunteer Fire District #11’s 2021 Begin building Priority: High Department Assistance response area. (#24) 2022 Purchase equipment

5.15.n: Obtain Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Secure funding Fire District #7 funding to replace or Jurisdiction: Fire 2020 Hire a builder remodel Stevens Mitigation Goals Districts County Fire District Addressed: 1 & 3 2021 Begin building No progress Potential Funding: #7’s Station 71. Volunteer Fire Priority: High Department Assistance (#24)

5.15.o: Obtain Wildfire Lead: Stevens County 2019 Secure funding Fire District #7 funding to build a Jurisdiction: Fire 2020 Hire a builder firefighter training Mitigation Goals Districts tower in Stevens Addressed: 1 & 3 2021 Begin building No progress Potential Funding: County Fire District Volunteer Fire #7. Priority: Low Department Assistance (#24)

5.15.p: Facility, land, Wildfire Lead: Stevens County N/A and basic equipment Fire District #13 for an additional Mitigation Goals station near the Addressed: 1 & 3 Jurisdiction: Completed center of Fire Potential Funding: District #13’s Priority: High response area.

141

Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.15.q: Establish a Severe Weather, Lead: Colville City 2019 Secure funding Council backup power Wildfire, 2020 Research type of source for Colville Earthquake Jurisdiction: City of generator needed and wire fire, police, water Colville facilities to accommodate a and sewer facilities. Mitigation Goals Addressed: 1 & 3 No progress Potential Funding: backup generator Pre-Disaster Mitigation 2020-21 Purchase Program (#20) generator Priority: High

5.15.r: Conduct Wildfire Lead: Colville City 2019 Secure funding mock drills for Council Jurisdiction: City of Mitigation Goals 2020 Coordinate training emergency training Colville opportunities with purposes with City Addressed: 1 & 3 No progress Potential Funding: County/neighboring services of Colville Volunteer Fire emergency Priority: High Department Assistance response (#24)

departments.

Fire Prevention and Education Projects

The protection of people and structures will be tied together closely because the loss of life in the event of a wildland fire is generally linked to a person who could not, or did not, flee a structure threatened by a wildfire or to a firefighter combating that fire. Many of the recommendations in this section involve education and increasing wildfire awareness among Stevens County residents.

Residents and policy makers of Stevens County should recognize certain factors that exist today, the absence of which would lead to increased risk of wildland fires in Stevens County. The items listed below should be acknowledged and recognized for their contributions to the reduction of wildland fire risks:

Forest and Shrub/Steppe Management has a significant impact on the fuel composition and structure in Stevens County. The forest and shrub/steppe management programs of the BLM, USFS, WADNR and numerous private landowners in the region have led to a reduction of wildland fuels. Furthermore, forest and shrub/steppe systems are dynamic and will never be completely free from risk. Treated areas will need repeated treatments to reduce the risk to acceptable levels in the long term.

Proposed Activities

142

Table 5.16. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.16.a: Wildfire Cooperative effort 2019 Develop education Implementation of including: DNR, State plan and secure funding youth and adult and Private Forestry 2020 Implement programs Priority: High wildfire educational Offices, BLM, USDA Jurisdiction: Fire programs. Forest Service, Local Districts School Districts, Spokane Indian No progress Potential Funding: Reservation, Stevens Volunteer Fire County Conservation Department Assistance District, NGOs, Local (#24) Fire District and Departments, and Incorporated cities 5.16.b: Conduct Wildfire Lead: Washington 2019 Identify areas to wildfire risk DNR conduct home assessments assessments of Support: County Jurisdiction: Fire and secure funding homes in identified Priority: High Commissioner’s, USFS, Districts 2020-2023 Begin contacting strategic planning NPS, local community Potential Funding: homeowners and conduct areas. organizations, Stevens No progress State Fire Assistance risk assessments County Fire Districts Wildland Urban #1-13, Northeast Interface Hazard Washington Forestry Mitigation Grants (#23) Coalition, and city fire departments. 5.16.c: Home site Wildfire Lead: Washington 2021 Secure funding defensible space DNR 2021-2023 Work with treatments in Support: County Jurisdiction: Fire homeowners identified in proposed project Priority: High Commissioner’s, USFS, Districts Item 5.15.b. as ‘high risk’ to areas. NPS, local community Potential Funding: begin implementing organizations, Stevens No progress Western States Fire defensible space projects. County Fire Districts Managers Wildland #1-13, Northeast Urban Interface Grant Washington Forestry Program (#25) Coalition, and city fire departments.

143

Table 5.16. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements.

Mitigated 2019 Status Jurisdiction & Action Items & Hazard/Goals Responsible • No Progress Planning Horizon Action Item Potential Funding Addressed Organization • In Progress (Appendix 7) &Priority Complete 5.16.d: Community Wildfire Lead: Washington 2021 Secure funding defensible zone DNR 2021-2023 Work with treatments in Priority: Support: County Jurisdiction: Fire communities identified in proposed project Medium Commissioner’s, USFS, Districts Item 5.15.b. as ‘high risk’ to areas. NPS, local community Potential Funding: begin implementing fuels organizations, Stevens No progress Western States Fire reduction projects. County Fire Districts Managers Wildland #1-13, Northeast Urban Interface Grant Washington Forestry Program (#25) Coalition, and city fire departments. 5.16.e: Maintenance Wildfire Lead: Washington 2021 Secure funding of home site DNR 2021-2023 Work with defensible space Priority: Support: County Jurisdiction: Fire homeowners/communities treatments. Medium Commissioner’s, USFS, Districts that have had fuels

NPS, local community Potential Funding: reduction work completed to organizations, Stevens No progress Western States Fire begin implementing County Fire Districts Managers Wildland maintenance of those fuels #1-13, Northeast Urban Interface Grant reduction projects. Washington Forestry Program (#25) Coalition, and city fire departments.

144

Proposed Fuel Reduction Planning Areas

Figure 5.1. Stevens County Proposed Fire Mitigation Projects.

145

Stevens County Proposed Fire Mitigation Projects

The following project areas were identified by the CWPP steering Team and from citizens’ recommendations during the public meetings. Most of the sites were visited during the field assessment phase. The areas where these projects are located were noted as having multiple factors contributing to the potential wildfire risk to residents, homes, infrastructure, and the ecosystem. Treatments within the project areas will be site specific, but will likely include homeowner education, creation of a wildfire defensible space around structures, fuels reduction, and access corridor improvements. All work on private property will be performed with consent of, and in cooperation with the property owners. Specific site conditions may call for other types of fuels reduction and fire mitigation techniques as well. Defensible space projects may include but are not limited to commercial or pre-commercial thinning, pruning, brush removal, chipping, prescribed burning, installation of greenbelts or shaded fuel breaks, and general forest and range health improvements.

Table 6.5 Project Areas. Address ID # Project Name # of Acres Priority Points 1 Addy-Gifford Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,683 77 High 2 Aladdin Roadside Fuels Treatment 10,897 259 High 3 Arden Fuels Reduction 11,878 592 High 4 Arden Butte Roadside Fuels Treatment 162 21 High 5 Black Lake Home Defensible Space 711 39 High 6 Bodie Mountain Roadside Fuels Treatment 987 35 High 7 Bulldog Fuels Reduction 18,480 523 High 8 Burnt Valley Home Defensible Space 5,314 112 High 9 Camp Nayborly Home Defensible Space 9,343 129 High 10 Cedonia-Addy Roadside Fuels Treatment 4,941 115 High 11 Corkscrew Canyon Home Defensible Space 6,212 126 High 12 Daisy Home Defensible Space 6,511 97 High 13 Deep Lake Home Defensible Space 2,081 155 High 14 Deer Creek Home Defensible Space 6,829 409 High 15 Deer Lake Home Defensible Space 4,785 1,105 High 16 Dry Creek Home Defensible Space/Roadside Fuels Treatment 5,699/1,385 143/83 High 17 Evans Fuels Reduction 11,078 303 High 18 Flat Creek Fuels Reduction 10,395 84 High 19 Flora Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 174 9 High 20 Flowery Trail Home Defensible Space 9,405 130 High 21 Gifford Home Defensible Space 9,054 132 High 22 Gold Heights Roadside Fuels Treatment 1,056 25 High 23 Gold Heights-Pingston Creek Defensible Space 19,527 331 High 24 Gulches Home Defensible Space 2,844 140 High 25 Hawks Home Defensible Space 887 19 High 26 Hawks Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 710 25 High

146

Table 6.5 Project Areas. Address ID # Project Name # of Acres Priority Points 27 Highway 20 East Roadside Fuels Treatment 5,115 197 High 28 Homestead Canyon Home Defensible Space 7,309 253 High 29 Hunters Home Defensible Space 15,494 187 High 30 Highway 25 North Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,105 42 High 31 Kelly Hill Fuels Reduction 8,667 78 High 32 Loon Lake Home Defensible Space 18,717 1,545 High 33 LPO Lakes Home Defensible Space 2,991 206 High 34 Miller Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 305 10 High 35 Mingo Mountain Home Defensible Space 3,866 87 High 36 Moran Creek Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 75 10 High 37 Narcisse Home Defensible Space 10,118 448 High 38 North Stone Mountain Way Defensible Space 1,699 26 High 39 Northport Home Defensible Space 27,726 635 High 40 Onion Creek Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 5,856 124 High 41 Onion Creek South Defensible Space 2,139 69 High 42 Park Rapids Home Defensible Space 3,218 81 High 43 Pierre Lake Home Defensible Space/Roadside Fuels Treatment 13,145/2,605 100/31 High 44 Quinns Meadow Home Defensible Space/Roadside Fuels Treatment 3,815/254 103/12 High 45 Rail Canyon Home Defensible Space 4,241 136 High 46 Red Lake Defensible Space 3,523 38 High 47 Rice Home Defensible Space 11,680 174 High 48 Sand Creek Home Defensible Space/Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,204/1,024 37/29 High 49 Scott Valley Home Defensible Space 3,239 173 High 50 Slide Creek Road Home Defensible Space 103 9 High 51 South Deep Home Defensible Space 1,544 32 High 52 Springdale-Hunters Road Roadside Fuels Treatment 8,073 222 High 53 Squaw Creek Home Defensible Space 1,907 32 High 54 Stranger Creek Home Defensible Space 3,081 45 High 55 Summit Valley Home Defensible Space 7,715 174 High 56 Suncrest Defensible Space 11,062 2,227 High 57 Wellpinit Home Defensible Space 7,630 274 High 58 West Kettle Falls Home Defensible Space 8,138 1,349 High 59 West Side Fuels Reduction 18,143 459 High

Regional Land Management Recommendations

Wildfires will continue to ignite and burn depending on the weather conditions and other factors enumerated earlier. However, active land management that modifies fuels, promotes healthy shrubland and grassland 147 conditions, and promotes the use of natural resources (consumptive and non-consumptive) will ensure that these lands have value to society and the local region. The Washington DNR, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, USFS, private forest landowners, and all other landowners in the region should be encouraged to actively manage their wildland-urban interface lands in a manner consistent with reducing fuels and wildfire risks. The following general recommendations are mitigation actions that property owners and other land stewards can implement to help reduce fuels buildup on their land.

Control Invasive Weeds

Non-native or invasive plants have been spreading across the western United States since Euro-Americans began settling the region. With the aid of grazing livestock and human disturbance, some non-native species have spread over vast areas and can out-compete many native species. This change in vegetation regime often comes with secondary impacts such as an increase fire frequency or fire intensity, as well as many other impacts.

There are many methods that can be utilized to control non-native species from spreading. The size of the outbreak and the species involved will determine the most effective method to control the outbreak. Small outbreaks of non-native plants can often be pulled by hand and disposed of before the plant goes to seed. Mowing, spraying, and even biological (insect) methods can be employed to control larger outbreaks. Regardless of the method, timing is often very important, and a quality plan will ensure the treatment is successful.

Control Insects and Disease

Insects and diseases have been a common occurrence within forests and shrublands throughout the western U.S. for millennia. In the past, these impacts generally occurred in specific locations and would eventually ‘run their course’, often benefiting the ecosystem by creating natural openings in the forest. Currently, our forests are unhealthy due to a variety of reasons and are subject to outbreaks of insect and/or disease over much larger areas than historically normal. These large outbreaks lead to severe impacts because it leaves the forest susceptible to stand replacing wildland fires.

Having a healthy forest or shrubland is the first, and most effective, step in combating the effect of insect or disease outbreaks. Insecticide can be sprayed over affected areas to eradicate harmful insects. Pheromones can be used, on a smaller scale, to deter certain species of insects from attacking an individual tree.

Mechanically Thin Forests

Many of the forests throughout the western U.S. have become overstocked and stagnant. There are numerous reasons to explain why this is, but regardless of the reason, it is widely accepted that some management is required. Overstocking leads to numerous other health issues including susceptibility to insects, disease, and drought.

Individual trees are marked for harvest by a professional forester in stands of timber that have been identified as overstocked. The trees are cut by hand or with a machine and then they are processed and hauled to a mill. The slash created from the logging activity is often piled and burned or chipped and taken to a biomass facility. The result is a stand of timber that is less dense which allows the remaining trees to have access to more resources (water, sunlight, and nutrients) than there was pre-harvest, creating a healthier forest that is more resistant to insect and disease outbreaks.

Reintroduce Fire to the Ecosystem 148

Fire has been removed from the system for several decades because it was once seen as destroyer of our nation’s natural “Today, livestock grazing is resources.34 This exclusion has resulted in an unnatural build- up of fuel that, when fire does occur, has higher potential to being rediscovered and be a stand replacing event.35 The lack of wildland fires has also honed as a viable and changed the species composition that historically occurred in many areas by allowing fire intolerant species to dominate or effective tool to address co-dominate the canopy. contemporary vegetation Reintroducing wildland fire can be accomplished in multiple ways. The first and most obvious is to simply conduct management challenges, prescribed burns. Another way is to manually collect downed woody debris and either removing it from the site or to pile it like controlling invasive for burning. Chipping or mulching is yet another method that mimics the effects of fire by reducing large amounts of fuel exotic weeds, reducing fire into small chips that decompose more rapidly than a large risk in the wildland-urban diameter log would. These are just a few suggestions of how to reintroduce fire or mimic the effects of fire.

interface, and finding Targeted Livestock Grazing

chemical-free ways to Livestock grazing, particularly cattle, has been a long-standing tradition in the rangelands of central Washington. control weeds in organic Historically, ranchers were able to make agreements with agriculture.” 43 state and federal land managers to expand their grazing operations on public ground for mutual benefit. In the last 30 years, this practice has been limited due to liability issues, environmental concerns, and litigation. Additionally, where federal grazing allotments are still available, the restrictions on timing are often inappropriate and/or too inflexible for the objectives of reducing fuel loads (i.e. wildfire risk), eradicating noxious and invasive species, and restoring native grass and sagebrush communities.

Most rangeland ecologists agree that in site-specific situations, livestock can be used as a tool to lower fire risk by reducing the amount, height, and distribution of fuel. Livestock can also be used to manage invasive weeds in some cases and even to improve wildlife habitat.

Targeted grazing can indeed reduce the amount, height, and distribution of fuel on a specific rangeland area, potentially decreasing the spread and size of wildfires under normal burning conditions. By definition, “Targeted grazing is the application of a specific kind of livestock at a determined season, duration, and intensity to accomplish defined vegetation or landscape goals.”36

34 Pyne SJ (1982) Fire in America: A cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire (Cycle of Fire). Seattle: University of Washington Press. 35 Dennis C. Odion, Et. Al. 2014. Examining Historical and Current Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed-Conifer Forests of Western North America. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087852. 36 Karen Launchbaugh, Walker, J. Targeted Grazing – A New Paradigm for Livestock Management. University of Idaho. Accessed online October, 2014 at: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/rx- grazing/handbook/Chapter_1_Targeted_Grazing.pdf. 149

There are many factors to consider regarding the use of livestock for reducing the amount, height, and continuity of herbaceous cover (especially cheatgrass) in site-specific situations:

• During the spring, cheatgrass is palatable and high in nutritional value before the seed hardens. Repeated intensive grazing (two or three times) at select locations during early growth can reduce the seed crop that year, as well as the standing biomass. In areas where desirable perennial species are also present, the intensive grazing of cheatgrass must be balanced with the growth needs of desired plants that managers and producers want to increase.

• Late fall or winter grazing of cheatgrass-dominated areas, complemented with protein supplement for livestock, should also be considered. After the unpalatable seeds have all dropped, cheatgrass is a suitable source of energy, but low in protein. Strategic intensive grazing of key areas can reduce carry-over biomass that would provide fuel during the next fire season. Late fall grazing can also target any fall-germinating cheatgrass before winter dormancy, thus reducing the vigor of these plants the following spring. Fall/winter grazing when desirable perennial grasses are dormant, and their seeds have already dropped, results in minimal impact to these species and therefore can be conducted with minimal adverse impact to rangeland health in many areas.

• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in some locations has an active “green-strip” program designed to reduce fire size and spread in key areas. Obviously, livestock can be used to maintain such green-strips to reduce the fine fuels (grasses) and control the spread of fire.

• The concept of “brown-strips” refers to areas where one or more treatments (prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, herbicide, and/or grazing) are used to reduce shrub cover, releasing the native perennial grasses. These grassy areas are preferred by cattle, which can then be grazed to reduce herbaceous fuels. This method leaves “brown-strips” when the stubble dries out in mid-summer, serving as fuel breaks to control the spread of wildfire. Where appropriate, protein-supplemented cows or sheep could be used to intensively graze and create brown-strips (e.g. along fences) to reduce the spread of fires during or after years of excess fuel build-up.

• Targeted grazing for the management of herbaceous fuels often requires a high level of livestock management, especially appropriate timing, as well as grazing intensity and frequency. To meet prescription specifications, operators often use herders, portable fencing, and/or dogs to ensure pastures are grazed to specification before the livestock are moved. Other expenses may include feed supplements, guardian dogs and/or night enclosures for protection from predators, water supply portability, mobile living quarters, and grazing animal transport. Targeted grazing is a business whose providers must earn a profit. Therefore, land management agencies need the option of contracting such jobs to willing producers and paying them for the ecosystem service rendered. This payment approach is already being implemented in some private and agency-managed areas to a limited extent, primarily for control of invasive perennial weeds. The use of and payment for prescription livestock grazing as a tool has substantial potential in the immediate and foreseeable future for managing vegetation in site-specific situations.

• In general, and less intensively, livestock can be used strategically by controlling the timing and duration of grazing in prioritized pastures where reduction of desirable perennial grass cover is needed for fire reduction purposes. Strategic locations could be grazed annually to reduce fuel loads and continuity at specific locations. Rotation of locations across years prevents overgrazing of any

150

one area but confers the benefits of fuel load reductions to much larger landscapes. Even moderate grazing and trampling can reduce fuels and slow fire spread.37

Dormant season grazing of perennial grasses has also been reported to aid in seedling recruitment. Some seeds require scarification before they will germinate. That can be accomplished by passage through the digestive tract or by hoof action on the seed. Hoof action can also press the seed into the ground and compress the soil around it, i.e. preparing a beneficial seed bed. These processes can also reasonably be expected to provide some benefit to the exotic annual grasses. These grasses; however, appear to succeed very well without that assistance. One can speculate that the perennial grasses would demonstrate a greater response to these effects and thus would gain some edge in the struggle for dominance with the exotic annuals. If those annuals were also grazed in the early spring before the perennials started or during fall germination events, or both, it is likely the annuals would have less vigor and produce less seed “The role of grazing as which would detract from their ability to out compete the a tool for fuel perennials.38 While the exact details of how the perennials benefit from dormant season grazing are not fully understood, Agricultural management is Research Service research in Nevada has reported success in decreasing annual grass dominance. generally supported, “The role of grazing as a tool for fuel management is generally but it should be supported, but it should be cautiously evaluated on a case-by-case basis because fire potential is influenced by interactions among cautiously evaluated several ecosystem variables.”39 Targeted grazing can reduce wildfire risk in specific areas. The targeted grazing strategies discussed on a case-by-case basis above all require a very flexible adaptive management approach by because fire potential both land management agencies and targeted grazing providers. Managers must determine objectives, then select and implement is influenced by the appropriate livestock grazing prescription, monitor accomplishments, and adjust as needed.40 interactions among Many residents feel that livestock grazing is a more desirable tool for several ecosystem managing wildland fire risk on both private and public lands because it poses less risk than prescribed burning, is less expensive than variables.”46 chemical applications, can be managed effectively for the long-term, and it benefits a large sector of the local economy.

37 McAdoo, Kent, et al. “Northeastern Nevada Wildfires 2006: Part 2 – Can Livestock Grazing be Used to Reduce Wildfires?” University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet-07-21. Available online at http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2007/fs0721.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 38 Schmelzer, L., Perryman, B. L., Conley, K., Wuliji, T., Bruce, L. B., Piper, K. 2008. “Fall grazing to reduce cheatgrass fuel loads”. Society for Range Management 2008. 39 Fuhlendorf, S. D., D. D. Briske, and F. E. Smeins. 2001. Herbaceaous vegetation change in variable rangeland environments: the relative contribution of grazing and climatic variability. Applied Vegetation Science 4: 177-188. 40 McAdoo, Kent, et al. “Northeastern Nevada Wildfires 2006: Part 2 – Can Livestock Grazing be Used to Reduce Wildfires?” University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet-07-21. Available online at http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2007/fs0721.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 151

Section 6 – Plan Maintenance

Plan Monitoring and Maintenance As part of the policy of Stevens County in relation to this planning document, this entire Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan should be reviewed annually, from the date of adoption, at a special meeting of a joint Planning Team, open to the public and involving all jurisdictions, where action items, priorities, budgets, and modifications can be made or confirmed. Stevens County Emergency Management (or an official designee of the joint Team) is responsible for the scheduling, publicizing, and leadership of the annual review meeting. During this meeting, participating jurisdictions will report on their respective projects and identify needed changes and updates to the existing Plan. Maintenance to the Plan should be detailed at this meeting, documented, and attached to the formal plan as an amendment to the Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Re- evaluation of this plan should be made on the 5th anniversary of its acceptance, and every 5-year period following.

Annual Review Agenda

The focus of the joint Planning Team at the annual review meeting should include at least the following topics: • Update historical events record based on any events in the past year. • Review county profile and individual community assessments for each hazard and note any major changes or mitigation projects that have altered the vulnerability of each entity. • Add a section to note accomplishments or current mitigation projects. • All action items in Chapter 6 will need updated as projects are completed, and as new needs or issues are identified. • Address Emergency Operations Plans – how can we dovetail the two plans to make them work for each other? Specifically, how do we incorporate the County’s EOP into the action items for the regional MHMP? • Incorporate additional hazard chapters as funding allows. All meeting minutes, press releases, and other documentation of revisions should be kept on record by Stevens County Emergency Management.

Five Year Re-evaluation Agenda

The focus of the Planning Team at the five-year re-evaluation should include all the topics suggested for the annual review in addition to the following items: • Update County demographic and socioeconomic data. • Address any new planning documents, ordinances, codes, etc. that have been developed by the County or cities. • Review listed communication sites. • Review municipal water sources, particularly those in the floodplain or landslide impact areas.

152

• Redo all risk analysis models incorporating new information such as an updated County parcel master database, new construction projects, development trends, population vulnerabilities, changing risk potential, etc. • Update county risk profiles and individual community assessments based on new information reflected in the updated models. All meeting minutes, press releases, and other documentation of revisions should be kept on record by Stevens County Emergency Management.

Continued Public Involvement

Stevens County is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of this Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County Emergency Manager, through the Planning Team, is responsible for the annual review and update of the Plan as recommended in the “Plan Monitoring and Maintenance” section below. The public will have the opportunity to provide feedback about the Plan annually on the anniversary of the adoption at a meeting of the County Board of Commissioners. Copies of the Plan will be kept at the Stevens County Courthouse. The Plan also includes contact information for the Emergency Manager, who is responsible for keeping track of public comments. A public meeting will also be held as part of each annual evaluation or when deemed necessary by the Planning Team. The meetings will provide the public a forum for which they can express concerns, opinions, or ideas about the Plan. The County Commissioner’s Office will be responsible for using County resources to publicize the annual meetings and maintain public involvement through the County’s webpage and local newspapers.

Mechanisms to Incorporate Mitigation Strategies Stevens County and the incorporated cities encourage the philosophy of instilling disaster resistance in normal day-to-day operations. By implementing plan activities through existing programs and resources, the cost of mitigation is often a small portion of the overall cost of a project’s design or program. Through their resolution of adoption as well as their participation on the Planning Team, each jurisdiction is aware of and committed to incorporating the risk assessments and mitigation strategies contained herein. It is anticipated that the research, local knowledge, and documentation of hazard conditions coalesced in this document will serve as a tool for decision-makers as new policies, plans, and projects are evaluated.

There are several planning processes and mechanisms in Stevens County that will either use the risk assessment information presented in this document to inform decisions or will integrate the mitigation strategy directly into capital improvement, infrastructure enhancement, and training projects; prevention campaigns; and land use and development plans. Although not inclusive, the following is a list of mechanisms available to each jurisdiction for incorporating the mitigation requirements:

Conservation District The Conservation District will incorporate this Plan into their annual and five-year plans. The Conservation District will also develop a procedure on emergency actions related to the Plan. Hospital District Mechanisms 1. Emergency Operations Plan

153

2. Annual Budget 3. Board of Directors Bylaws (Operational Protocols) Agencies and other Organization Mechanisms 1. Annual Budget 2. Prevention Programs 3. Training Programs 4. Long Term Land Use Plans (Forest Plans, Wildlife Management Area Plans, etc.) Stevens County

Periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations are required every 8 years under GMA to determine whether existing plans and regulations are consistent with the most current legislation and to revise, as necessary. The County is beginning the periodic review process. This HMP will be reviewed and incorporated as necessary into this current update.

Stevens County, the City of Kettle Falls and the towns of Marcus and Northport formed a Partnership to update and adopt their respective SMPs. This plan will be reviewed prior to the next SMP update for Stevens County, Kettle Falls, Marcus, and Northport.

The Stevens County Emergency Manager is responsible for educating the Board of Commissioners and other County departments as well as city planners on the contents and incorporation requirements of the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. County Emergency Management and other Planning Team partners should be aware of the risk assessments and mitigation strategies respective to their jurisdictions to include them in the planning processes and discussions for other types of projects as they come up. Stevens County Emergency Management is responsible for ensuring that each participating jurisdiction as well as other partners has a copy of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan readily available for reference purposes. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Stevens County Emergency Management is responsible for annual and 5-year evaluations of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The annual meetings will serve a dual purpose of updating the document and refreshing each jurisdiction’s memory of the contents and mitigation requirements of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Members of the Planning Team are also responsible of educating decision-makers in their own jurisdictions on the use and incorporation of mitigation requirements of this document into other planning mechanisms such as those listed above.

154

Section 7 – Appendices

Supporting Information

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Land Ownership Categories in Stevens County...... 13 Table 2.2. Historical and Current Population by Community...... 14 Table 2.3. Vegetative Cover Types in Stevens County...... 17 Table 4.1 Stevens County Hazard Summary...... 46 Table 4.2 Overall Significance Summary...... 47 Table 4.3 Overall Flood Significance Summary...... 52 Table 4.4 Municipal Water Sources in the FEMA floodplain...... 53 Table 4.5 Significant Access Routes located in floodplain...... 54 Table 4.6. NFIP Policy Statistics as of 1/30/2018 in Stevens County...... 55 Table 4.7 Second-Order Hazards Related to Flood Events...... 56 Table 4.8 Overall Earthquake Significance Summary...... 61 Table 4.9 Estimate of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings by Jurisdiction...... 62 Table 4.10 Second-Order Hazards Related to Earthquake Events...... 63 Table 4.11 Overall Landslide Significance Summary...... 67 Table 4.12 Summary of Assets at Risk in Landslide Impact Zones...... 67 Table 4.13 Second-Order Hazards Related to Landslide Events...... 70 Table 4.13 Overall Severe Weather Significance Summary...... 76 Table 4.14 Loss estimates for severe wind in Stevens County...... 77 Table 4.15 Second-Order Hazards Related to Severe Weather Events...... 78 Table 4.16 Statistical Highlights of Wildfires from 2007 -2017 Nationally...... 79 Table 4.17 Summary of National Ignitions and Acres Burned Annually (1980-2017)...... 80 Table 4.18 Summary of Cause from State and BLM databases 2000-2018 ...... 81 Table 4.19 Overall Wildland Fire Significance Summary ...... 90 Table 4.20 Second-Order Hazards Related to Wildland Fire Events...... 91 Table 4.20 Overall Drought Significance Summary ...... 94 Table 4.20 Second-Order Hazards Related to Drought Events...... 95 Table 5.1. Stevens County Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 98 Table 5.2. City of Colville Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 100 Table 5.3. Northeast Tri-County Health District Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 103 Table 5.4. Stevens County Conservation District ...... 105 Table 5.5. Kettle Falls Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 107 Table 5.6. Chewelah Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 109 Table 5.10. Stevens County Fire District #1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment ...... 111 Table 5.11. Action Items for Safety and Policy...... 121 155

Table 5.12. Action Items for People and Structures...... 128 Table 5.13. Action Items for Infrastructure Enhancements...... 130 Table 5.14. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements...... 137 Table 5.15. Action Items for Resource and Capability Enhancements...... 143 Table 6.5 Project Areas...... 146

156

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Residential Building Permits...... 15 Figure 2.2. City of Colville Zoning Map...... 22 Figure 2.3 City of Colville Location...... 23 Figure 2.4 City of Kettle Falls Location...... 24 Figure 2.5. City of Chewelah Zoning Map...... 26 Figure 2.6 City of Chewelah Location...... 27 Figure 2.7 City of Springdale Location...... 28 Figure 2.8 City of Marcus Location...... 29 Figure 2.9. City of Northport Location...... 30 Figure 2.10 Map of Stevens County Fire Protection Districts...... 33 Figure 3.1. Press Release #1 – Planning Process Announcement...... 39 Figure 3.2. Press Release #2 - Public Meeting Flyer...... 40 Figure 3.3. Press Release #3 – Public Comment Period...... 42 Figure 4.1. Hazard Summary Worksheet...... 45 Figure 4.2 Stevens County Flood Map...... 50 Figure 4.3 Geologic Setting in Washington...... 57 Figure 4.4 Historic Earthquake Epicenters with Magnitudes of 3.0 or Greater (1872 – 2011)...... 59 Figure 4.5 Stevens County Earthquake Shaking...... 60 Figure 4.6 Landslide Prone Landscapes Analysis...... 65 Figure 4.7 Landslide Impact Zones in Stevens County...... 69 Figure 4.8 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Winter Storms...... 71 Figure 4.9 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Blizzard...... 72 Figure 4.10 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Severe Thunderstorms...... 73 Figure 4.11 Washington Counties Most Vulnerable to Tornadoes...... 75 Figure 4.12. Summary of Stevens County State and Federal Ignitions by Cause...... 81 Figure 4.13. Summary of Stevens County State and Federal Acres Burned by Cause...... 82 Figure 4.14 Stevens County Relative Threat Level Map...... 84 Figure 4.15. Stevens County Wildland Urban Interface...... 87 Figure 4.9 Washington Counties Most At-Risk and Vulnerable to Drought...... 95 Figure 5.1. Stevens County Proposed Fire Mitigation Projects...... 145 Figure 7.1. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for December 5th, 2017...... 175 Figure 7.2. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for January 17th, 2018...... 177 Figure 7.3. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for February20th, 2018...... 178 Figure 7.4. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet on April 17th, 2018...... 179 Figure 7.5. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for May 31st, 2018 ...... 180 Figure 7.6. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for October 2nd, 2018 ...... 181

157

Memorandum of Agreement I. Purpose A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is hereby executed between the participating jurisdictions in the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) Update. “Participating jurisdictions” in this MOA are as follows:

• Stevens County • Stevens County Fire District 1 • Stevens County Conservation District • Northeast Tri-County Health District • City of Colville • City of Chewelah • City of Kettle Falls • Town of Marcus • Town of Springdale • Town of Northport The purpose of this MOA is to establish commitment from and a cooperative working relationship between all Participating Jurisdictions in the development and implementation of the Stevens County MHMP Update. In addition, the intent of this MOA is to ensure that the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan is developed in accordance with Title 44 of the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) Part 201.6; that the planning process is conducted in an open manner involving community stakeholders; that it is consistent with each participating jurisdiction’s policies, programs and authorities; and it is an accurate reflection of the community’s values.

This MOA sets out the responsibilities of all parties. The MOA identifies the work to be performed by each participating jurisdiction. Planning tasks, schedules, and finished products are identified in the Work Program and Schedule. The plan created as a result of this MOA will be presented to the governing body (Planning Commission, City Council and or Board of Commissioners) of each participating jurisdiction for adoption.

II. Background Mitigation plans form the foundation for a community’s long-term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. The Participating Jurisdictions in a mitigation planning process would benefit by:

• identify cost effective actions for risk reduction; • directing resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities; • building partnerships by involving people, organizations, and businesses; • increasing education and awareness of hazards and risk; • aligning risk reduction with other community objectives; and • providing eligibility to receive federal hazard mitigation grant funding. Stevens County has received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan in accordance with 44 FEMA requirements at 44.C.F.R. 201.6.

158

III. Planning Team Responsibilities Stevens County will act as the Lead Community and will assign a Chairperson of the Planning Team for the Stevens County MHMP Update. The Participating Jurisdictions authorize the Lead Community to manage and facilitate the planning process in accordance with the Work Program and Schedule.

The Participating Jurisdictions understand that representatives must engage in the following planning process, as more fully described in the Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (FEMA, 2012), including, but not limited to:

• Develop the Work Program and Schedule with the Planning Team. • Organize and attend regular meetings of the Planning Team. • Assist the Planning Team with developing and conducting an outreach strategy to involve other planning team members, stakeholders, and the public, as appropriate to represent their jurisdictions. • Identify community resources available to support the planning effort, including meeting spaces, facilities, and media outlets. • Provide data and feedback to develop the risk assessment and mitigation strategy, including a specific mitigation action plan for their Jurisdiction. • Submit the draft plan to their respective governing body for consideration and adoption. • Work with the Planning Team to incorporate all their Jurisdiction’s comments into the draft plan. • Submit the draft plan to their respective governing body for consideration and adoption. • After adoption, coordinate a process to monitor, evaluate, and work toward plan implementation.

IV. Planning Team The following points of contacts and alternatives are authorized on behalf of the governing bodies to participate as members of the Planning Team for the Stevens County MHMP Update:

James Caruso Mike Bucy Emergency Management Director Fire Chiefs President Stevens County Sheriff’s Office Stevens County Fire District #1 260 S. Oak, Courthouse Annex 4532 Railroad Ave Colville, WA 99114 Clayton, WA 99110 509-684-7543 509-262-9660 [email protected] [email protected] Matt Schanz Dean Hellie Administrator Administrator NE Tri-County Health District Stevens County Conservation District Stevens County 232 Williams Lake Road 240 E Dominion Ave Colville, WA 99114 Colville, WA 99114 509-684-7579 509-684-1301 [email protected] [email protected] Dorothy Knauss Louis Janke Mayor Mayor

159

City of Chewelah City of Colville PO Box 258 170 S Oak Chewelah, WA 99109 Colville, WA 99114 509-935-8311 509-684-5094 [email protected] [email protected] Karen Lyons John Ridlington Mayor Mayor Town of Marcus City of Kettle Falls 1011 Cider Street PO Box 457 Marcus, WA 99151 Kettle Falls, WA 99141 509-684-3771 509-738-6821 [email protected] [email protected] Mike Lamb Elizabeth Calderwood Mayor Mayor Town of Northport Town of Springdale 315 Summit Ave PO Box 220 Northport, WA 99157 Springdale, WA 99173 509-732-4450 509-258-7258 [email protected] [email protected]

V. MOA Implementation This MOA will be in effect from the date of signature by all parties, will remain in effect through the duration of the planning process, and will terminate after adoption of the final FEMA-approved mitigation plan by all participating jurisdictions, or 5 years after FEMA approval, whichever is earlier. It may be terminated prior to that time for any Participating Jurisdiction by giving 60 days written notice. This MOA is to be implemented through the attached Work Program and Schedule, and any addendums that describe specific activities, programs, and projects, and if necessary, funding by separate instrument.

160

James Caruso Date Commissioner Date Emergency Management Director Stevens County Stevens County Fire District 1 Sheriff’s Office

Dean Hellie Date Louis Janke Date Administrator Mayor Stevens County City of Colville Conservation District

Dorothy Kanauss Date John Ridlington Date Mayor Mayor City of Chewelah City of Kettle Falls

Karyn Lyons Date Elizabeth Calderwood Date Mayor Mayor Town of Marcus Town of Springdale

Mike Lamb Date Matt Schanz Date Mayor Administrator Town of Northport Northeast Tri-County Health District Stevens County

161

Record of Local Adoption Each participating jurisdiction formally adopted the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan by resolution in an open public hearing. The following is a record of the resolutions passed by the governing body in each represented jurisdiction.

Stevens County Resolution of Adoption

Stevens County Conservation District

City of Colville Resolution of Adoption

City of Chewelah Resolution of Adoption

City of Kettle Falls Resolution of Adoption

Town of Marcus Resolution of Adoption

Town of Springdale Resolution of Adoption

Town of Northport Resolution of Adoption

Stevens County Fire Districts #1-13

Tri-County Public Health District

162

Fire District/Agency Signatures

Stevens County Fire Protection District #1 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #2 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #3 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #4 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #5 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #6 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #7 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #8 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #9 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection District #10 Date

163

Stevens County Fire Protection District #11 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection Districts #12 Date

Stevens County Fire Protection Districts #13 Date

Lindsey Babcock, Border Resource Manager, Date

Spokane District Bureau of Land Management

Aaron Everett, Deputy Supervisor, Date

Forest Practices and Federal Relations, State Forester, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

164

Planning Team Minutes TEDD Building, Colville December 2017

Brad Tucker (presenter) Northwest Management, Inc. Process should go through July. You can put as much or as little as you want into this. This is your opportunity to be involved. Points of contact are needed for anyone adopting parts of the plan. If you do not want to be involved, then you need to find a new person to take over. If you will be missing a meeting, please have back-up representation The goal of all this is to identify risks and hazards that Stevens County faces and identify shortcomings. How can we mitigate these risks? Will be meetings each month for 5-6 months. MHMP Purpose of the MHMP • Recognize and ID risk factors • Reduce loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption and Disaster Assistance Costs • Provide for Public Awareness • Improve County’s Eligibility for Funding Assistance o FEMA requires this plan to be in place to get any disaster assistance. Planning Process • ID policies and actions that will permanently reduce the risk of damage and loss • Improve the welfare of the people and communities • Enhance ability of communities to recover from disasters • Establish partnerships for community resilience • Provide for public awareness o Public meetings, feedback from the various communities, citizens participate • Improve county’s eligibility for funding assistance Adopting Jurisdictions • Stevens County • Colville • Chewelah • Kettle falls • Town of Marcus • Fire districts 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,11 &12 • SCCD • The CWPP, Community wildfire protection plan, (DNR and BLM paid for the update) this will be included – these 2 documents are being merged – FEMA will pay for the multi and if you integrate the CWPP then in the future it can be updated through the FEMA process 2019 Plan • Flooding • Earthquake • Landslides 165

• Severe Weather (high winds, severe thunderstorms, lightening, hail, tornado, drought) • Wildland Fire • Terrorism/Civil Unrest (not generally required by FEMA) (usually a stand alone- not accessible to everyone- the state is not requiring ESF 20 - • Avalanche (may be added) Matrix for each hazard – ranks each one and what is the likelihood of it occurring? What about communication outages? Technological, infrastructure failure. What if we are out of power? IE Cascadia rising – what if the power outage effects us even though the natural disaster did not? Hazard material- identified under ESF 10 addresses the hazards- in each multi-hazard potential hazardous material will be addressed Major Document components • Intro • Community descriptions • Planning process • Risk assessment • Mitigation strategy • Plan maintenance (updated from a local standpoint each year) • GIS Mapping o -floodplain (FIRMS) o -landslide prone landscapes o -fault lines/geological features o -weather patterns o NAIP imagery • Critical structures/infrastructures • Team ID hazards • Mitigation project areas Types of Projects • Risk reduction: slope stabilization, snow fences • Access issues: bridges, turnouts • Emergency response needs: training • Policy issues: building codes, road restrictions • Pre-planning efforts in high risk areas Public Involvement • -FEMA requires involving the public • -Press Releases and flyers – 3x • -Public Meetings – 2x-4x • -Public Review Period • Think about where the meetings should be held- generally like to have them distributed throughout the county. Also an option to do a presentation somewhere where public is expected to be – like city council meetings, county commissioner meetings. Review and Approval Process • Team review

166

• Public review • Submit to WA EM division for preliminary review • Incorporate requested revisions from WA EM • Submit to FEMA for preapproval review • Incorporate requested revisions • Gather local adoption signatures • Final submit to FEMA Finished Product • prioritization of implementation projects and action items by jurisdiction • in-depth risk analyses by hazard and jurisdiction • loss estimations by jurisdiction • work and pdf plus hardcopies • full GIS database (set up to county specs) • wall maps for local use • FEMA – approved MHMP Timeline • Team Meetings: December – May, June • Public Review: May • Submit to WAEM: June • FEMA: July • Local adoptions: July or August • Completion: August 31, 2018 Discussion The CEMP was just updated: that document is more, something has happened – what do we do. Different from the document we are discussing. These plans we will be working on is pre-disaster. How can we mitigate the shortcoming: Pre- planning will not walk us through who does what, etc. The CWPP- has to have a state forester signature – if they are being rolled together (DNR, County Commissioners will have to resign the document most likely) ICS will not kick in until after the disaster hit. This plan will not be a direction to how the event will be handled. FEMA will not pay out if proof has not been shown that risk mitigation has occurred prior to the emergency event. Mass casualty: pre-mitigation, lack of resources, or abundance of resources should be discussed. For the public meetings: have a front-end document so that people know and understand the basics of what is going on and what we are accomplishing here. Coconino Arizona- their hazard plan will be what we will be following. • http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48491

167

TEDD, Colville, Washington January 17th, 2018 Attendees: Dean Hellie, Stevens Co. Conservation District John Kokinda, Town of Springdale Vaiden Bloch, Northwest Management Kinsey Koots, TEDD Pat Lowery, Resident (Deer Lake) Adam Cares, Stevens County Planning Ryan Power, WA Department of Natural Resources Adena Sabins, WSU Extension Jarett Cook, WA Department of Natural Resources James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management Lou Janke, City of Colville Mike Bucy, Stevens Co Fire District #1 Robert Meshishneh, Colville Police Department Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Grant Peterson, Resident Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner Linda Peterson, Resident Patrick Albee, Town of Springdale Dorothy Knauss, City of Chewelah Jim Plamer, Resident Ed Dean, US Border Patrol Rich Bergstrom, Red Cross Ernest Huber, Emergency Operations Center

Agenda Item #1 Old Business Brad briefly reviewed the previous meeting and asked if there were any questions. A proposed plan format was passed around the room and the group agreed that this new format would work well for Stevens County. The planning team also noted that a statement mentioning “in accordance with CEMP and NIMS…” should be included in the foreward or overview and referenced throughout the plan to buttress support for issues discussed in the Hazard Plan. The planning team would also like to include long-term power outage as a stand-alone hazard and provide a resource list from each jurisdiction. We discussed the importance of establishing an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the residents of Stevens County and it will be included as an Action Item within the plan. Agenda Item #2 Determine the Planning Area & Resources The group discussed including a regional map showing critical infrastructure outside of Stevens County. Brad reviewed the current adopting jurisdictions with the team and it was determined that the NE Tri- Counties Health District would be included as an adopting jurisdiction. Brad passed around a draft Memorandum of Agreement for each of the adopting jurisdictions to review and ultimately sign as officially agreeing to participate in the planning process and adopt the plan when finished. Brad will revise the MOA and send out to each jurisdiction to sign. Agenda Item #3 Build the Planning Team The planning team also discussed the current Mission and Vision statements. There was some discussion on the lengthy Mission statement and Jim Caruso enlisted Adena Sabins and/or Mike Bucy to revise the current version and provide a draft to the group at the next meeting. The planning team reviewed the proposed schedule set forth by NMI and there were no issues. Agenda Item #4 Outreach Strategy The group discussed the public outreach strategy. Brad did not get a press release sent out prior to this meeting but intends to get one sent out before the February meeting. The group informed NMI of several media outlets that would reach the most Stevens County residents. Adena Sabins will send NMI her list of contacts with the various media outlets as a resource. Agenda Item #5 Review Community Capabilities Brad passed out a table that is designed for each jurisdiction to summarize their current resources/policies/plans/etc. and allows them to identify gaps or shortcomings to mitigating hazards. NMI will provide this table electronically. Agenda Item #6 Hazards Summary Exercise This item was skipped due to time constraints. We will go through the hazards summary exercise. Agenda Item #7 Timeline

168

We are tentatively planning to be finished with the plan by August 31st. The next meeting is February 20th at 9:00am in the TEDD building. We may have to change venues if we have an influx of team members planning to attend.

169

TEDD, Colville, Washington February 20th, 2018 Attendees: Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Matt Schanz, Northeast Tri-County Health Dist. Vaiden Bloch, Northwest Management Ken Kerr, Stevens /Ferry Fire District 3 & 8 Pat Lowery, Resident (Deer Lake) Ian Pickett, Habitat for Humanity Jim Palmer Sr. Resident Adena Sabins, WSU Extension Raymond Winsor, Colville Fire Department James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management Lou Janke, City of Colville Mike Bucy, Stevens Co Fire District #1 Robert Meshishneh, Colville Police Department Mark Burrows, Chewelah Police Department Grant Peterson, Resident Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner Linda Peterson, Resident Pete Hartman, WA State Emergency Management Ernest Huber, Emergency Operations Center John Ridlington, City of Kettle Falls

Agenda Item #1 Old Business Brad discussed the current state of the Memorandum of Agreement that all adopting jurisdictions are being asked to sign. Brad informed the planning Team that he mis understood that Chief Bucy was able to sign the MOA as a rep for all the Districts, when in fact each District’s Commissioners will sign the document. Brad will revise the MOA and get it sent out soon to the necessary individuals. Brad reminded the adopting jurisdictions that he still needs their capability assessments. Brad has received the City of Colville and Stevens County capability assessments. Brad asked the planning Team if anyone had attempted to rewrite the Mission Statement, no attempts were reported. Agenda Item #2 GIS Models & Maps Vaiden from Northwest Management introduced some of the maps that will be used to help analyze those hazards for Stevens County. Vaiden had a short presentation to show how the Stevens County Relative Threat Level map was developed during the recent update of the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. He also showed maps related to flood, landslide and earthquake. Agenda Item #3 Hazards Summary Exercise Brad passed around hazard data acquired from Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database (SHELDUS) to assist in the exercise. Brad explained that this data is not all-inclusive, and the planning team would need to rely on their experience of living within the region to be the primary tool in “ranking” each hazard. Brad also explained that this exercise is a necessary part of the planning process because we need to show how each hazard was ranked. The planning team proceeded to assess or rank each hazard that was included in the previous version of the Stevens County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan which included; flood, landslide, earthquake and severe weather. Wildland fire was also ranked because the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan will be included into this plan update. The team then proceeded to brainstorm for additional hazards to include in this plan update. The additional hazards include; extended power outage, communication outage, epidemic, hazmat, drought and displaced population. These additional hazards were also ranked using the same process. The following table shows the outcome of the hazard summary exercise.

170

Stevens County Location (Geographinc Area Max Probable Extent Probability of Overall Significance Hazard Affected) (Magnitude/Strength) Future Events Ranking Flood Significant (3) Severe (3) Highly Likely (4) High (10) Landslide Significant (3) Moderate (2) Highly Likely (4) High (9) Earthquake Negligble (1) Weak (1) Unlikely (1) Low (3) Severe Weather Extensive (4) Severe (3) Highly Likely (4) High (11) Wildland Fire Extensive (4) Extreme (4) Highly Likely (4) High (12) Avalanche Negligble (1) Weak (1) Unlikely (1) Low (3) Drought Significant (3) Moderate (2) Likely (3) Medium (8) Extended Power Outage Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) Epidemic Limited (2) Moderate (2) Occasional (2) Medium (6) HazMAt Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) Displaced Population Negligble (1) Severe (3) Unlikely (1) Low (5) Communication Outage Extensive (4) Severe (3) Likely (3) High (10) Agenda Item #4 Hazard Description Brad asked the planning team for any local photos of hazards occurring since 2008 that could be used in the plan update. Agenda Item #5 Fire Service Updates (other Jurisdictions) Brad asked for any agency/district within the county that has fire service responsibilities to provide an update to projects and resources that were identified in the recent update of the county’s CWPP. Agenda Item #6 Timeline The next meeting will be in mid-April and you will be notified once a specific date and time are selected. The meeting will be held in Chewelah. Agenda Item #7 Homework Adopting jurisdictions need to sign the MOA when available. They also need to fill out their capability assessment and rank each hazard identified in our meeting for their respective jurisdiction. Send photos of hazards to Mr. Caruso.

171

Chewelah, Washington April 17th, 2018 Attendees: Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Matt Schanz, Northeast Tri-County Health Dist. Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner Mark Burrows, Chewelah Police Department Michael Frizzell, City of Chewelah Lou Janke, City of Colville Jim Palmer Sr. Resident Adena Sabins, WSU Extension Steve Turcott, WS DOT Emergency James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management Management Ken Barker, RACES (Communications) Mike Bucy, Stevens Co Fire District #1 Robert Meshishneh, Colville Police Department Andy Harbolt, Stevens County Sheriff’s Office Grant Peterson, Resident Steve Decook, Washington DNR Linda Peterson, Resident Myron Boles, Washington DNR Dean Hellie, Stevens Co. Conservation District Ron Samuels, Spokane Tribe Patrick Albee, Town of Springdale Dorothy Knauss, City of Chewelah

Agenda Item #1 Old Business: Brad discussed the current state of the Memorandum of Agreement that all adopting jurisdictions are being asked to sign. Brad reminded the adopting jurisdictions that he still needs their capability assessments and hazard summaries. Agenda Item #2 Review Section 3: NMI passed out a draft of Section 3 which covers the Planning Process and Public Involvement. NMI representative informed the Planning Team that this is draft and to not get “hung up” on formatting revisions. NMI briefly went through the section with the Planning Team pointing out specific places where the Planning Team might provide some information. Much of this section will be updated as we move forward in the planning process as we get additional individuals to the meetings and we identify when and where public meetings will be held and so forth. Agenda Item #3 Review Section 4: NMI passed out a draft of Section 4 which covers the Risk Assessments for the hazards identified by the Planning Team in an earlier meeting. NMI had only updated the hazards that were previously assessed in the 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Severe weather, earthquake, landslide, flood and wildland fire were the specific hazards updated thus far. There was another discussion on whether terrorism/civil unrest hazard be included in the plan. There is a faction of the Planning Team that thinks it is important to cover but to keep it separate from the main plan, so the County can keep track of who is reviewing it. NMI was asked to contact FEMA and find out what they recommend. Agenda Item #4 Action Items: The group began reviewing the Action Items from the 2008 plan with the intent of updating the list for the new plan. The group did not finish reviewing the list before the meeting was adjourned and therefore will be covered at the next meeting. Agenda Item #5 Homework NMI reminded the adopting jurisdictions that they need to provide MOAs, capability assessments and hazard summaries as soon as possible. Agenda Item #6 Timeline The next meeting will be at 9:00 am on May 17th. The meeting will be held in Chewelah.

172

Colville, Washington May 31st, 2018 Attendees: Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Edward Dean, US Border Patrol Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner John Ridlington, Kettle Falls Nancy Hofmann, Resident Lou Janke, City of Colville Jim Palmer Sr. Resident Adena Sabins, WSU Extension Ernest Huber, Resident James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management Pete Hartmann, Washington EMD Ken Kerr, Ferry/Stevens Co Fire Districts #3/8 Robert Meshishneh, Colville Police Department Connie Mahugh, Rural Resources Grant Peterson, Resident Dave Klimas, Stevens Co. F.D. #12 & ARES Linda Peterson, Resident Dean Hellie, Stevens Co. Conservation District Mike Blackmon, Amateur Radio Emergency Brent Hellie, Chewelah Rural Ambulance & SCFD Service (ARES) #4 Brad Manke, Stevens County Sheriff’s Office Jason Davis, Washington State Police Mike Berry, Candidate for Sheriff

Agenda Item #1 Old Business: Brad discussed the current state of the Memorandum of Agreement that all adopting jurisdictions are being asked to sign. Brad reminded the adopting jurisdictions that he still needs their capability assessments and hazard summaries. Brad also asked for photos of disasters that have occurred throughout the County since 2008 to be sent to Mr. Caruso. Brad asked the group if there were any comments on the draft sections that were passed out at the previous meeting. There were none but it was asked if Brad could resend those out to the group. It was also asked if Northwest Management could “track changes” on sections of the plan that the group has already reviewed so they do not have to re-read the entire plan once it is finished. Agenda Item #2 Hazard Assessments: Jim and Brad explained to the group that FEMA does not pay for man-made or technological hazards to be assessed in this type of plan. Therefore, the County will pay to assess Terrorism/Civil Unrest in a separate section from the plan which will not be submitted for review by the State or FEMA. The other hazards such as power outage, hazmat, communication outage, etc. will be incorporated into other natural hazards and will not be assessed individually. The majority of the group agreed. Agenda Item #3 Action Items: The group continued reviewing the Action Items from the 2008 plan with the intent of updating the list for the new plan. The group did not finish reviewing the list before the meeting was adjourned and therefore will be covered at the next meeting. Agenda Item #4 Public Meetings: Brad mentioned that he would like to host public meetings in July and asked the group how many and where that think they could be well attended. Some from the group wanted to know what we would cover at these meetings. Brad explained that at this point it would be strictly informational because we are not ready to have input on an actual draft. Typically, Brad continued, these public meetings inform folks about the process, what the plan will cover and how the County/residents can benefit. It was decided that we would host meetings in Colville, Chewelah, Northport and Suncrest, utilizing City Council meetings whenever possible. A notice will be sent out to Team members and the public as soon as all times, dates and locations are scheduled.

Agenda Item #5 Homework: (continued on next page) NMI reminded the adopting jurisdictions that they need to provide MOAs, capability assessments and hazard summaries as soon as possible. Agenda Item #6 Timeline: The next meeting will be at 9:00 am on July 11th. The meeting will be held in Colville at the TEDD facility.

173

Colville, Washington October 2nd, 2018 Attendees: Brad Tucker, Northwest Management Edward Dean, US Border Patrol Lorrie Sampson, Stevens Co Coroner Micah Kalnzny, Mount Carmel Hospital Matt Schanz, NortheastTri-county Health Lou Janke, City of Colville Mike Blackmon, Amateur Radio Emergency Tyson Luu, Buena Vista Healthcare Service (ARES) Ernest Huber, Resident James Caruso, Stevens Co Emergency Management Dorothy Knauss, City of Chewelah Mike Bucy, Stevens #1 Fire & Rescue Barbara Harding, Northport Resident Mike Berry, Candidate for Sheriff Grant Peterson, Resident Dave Klimas, Stevens Co. F.D. #12 & ARES Linda Peterson, Resident

Agenda Item #1 Old Business: Brad discussed the current state of the Memorandum of Agreement that all adopting jurisdictions are being asked to sign. Brad reminded the adopting jurisdictions that he still needs their capability assessments and hazard summaries. Brad asked the group if there were any comments on the draft sections that were passed out at the previous meeting. Brad advised the group that he has asked the USFS and DNR for an update to project and is waiting for their response. Brad and Jim Caruso updated the group on how the public meetings went and that there was little to no interest from the public. Agenda Item #2 Sections 5 & 6: The group reviewed sections 5 & 6 of the plan. These are the last two sections of the plan and a final draft should be ready for review by the end of the month. Please review these sections and provide comments to Jim by October 19th to be incorporated into the final draft. Agenda Item #3 TCU Review: The group then reviewed the Terrorism and Civil Unrest section of the plan. Brad explained that this section will not be sent to FEMA for review and the County will keep it separate from the main plan to protect potentially sensitive information. Brad asked the group to assist in an exercise to determine the level of risk residents are faced with from this hazard. Brad also asked for updated information regarding critical infrastructure. Please send updates to Jim Caruso by October 19th. Agenda Item #4 Final Draft Review: Brad explained how the draft review process will occur. The planning team and the public will receive the Final Draft in late October, everyone will have two weeks to review the plan concurrently. The public will be informed how and where to access the plan and how to provide comments through a press release prior to the review period. Once the final draft is reviewed by the public and planning team, it will be sent to Washington Emergency Management Division for review. Once EMD is finished reviewing the plan it will be sent to FEMA for review. Agenda Item #5 Homework: NMI reminded the adopting jurisdictions that they need to provide capability assessments and hazard summaries, comments on sections 5 & 6, and comments on TCU section to Jim Caruso by October 19th. Agenda Item #6 Timeline: There is no planned meeting scheduled at this time. Unless there are significant comments on the draft, we likely won’t need another meeting.

174

Record of Meeting Attendance The following is a record of the attendance taken at each of the Team and public meetings held during the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning process. Figure 7.1. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for December 5th, 2017.

175

176

Figure 7.2. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for January 17th, 2018.

177

Figure 7.3. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for February20th, 2018.

178

Figure 7.4. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet on April 17th, 2018.

179

Figure 7.5. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for May 31st, 2018

180

Figure 7.6. Team Meeting Sign-in Sheet for October 2nd, 2018

181

Potential Funding Sources

Points of Contact

Common Eligible Projects Federal

/ /

Mitigation Programs State 41

FuelsReduction Space Defensible Property Elevation Utility Undergrounding Critical Facility Generator Structural Retrofit Infrastructure Other Retrofit Source Water or Protection Aquifer Recharge orSlope Bank Stabilization Feasibility Study, Mapping, and Design Planning (Hazard Mitigation or Other) Flood Risk Reduction Project Other BUILD Grants U.S. Department of Description: Grants support investments in Transportation surface transportation infrastructure and are to (USDOT) Stormwater Reduction be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant local/regional impact. Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities U.S. Environmental Description: This EPA program provides Protection Agency targeted, technical assistance to communities to (EPA) develop resilience plans, development plans, sustainability strategies, etc. Community Development Block Grants U.S. HUD Description: CDBG funds comprehensive plans, / limited infrastructure planning/construction, WA Department of Low-Income Housing feasibility studies, community action plans. Commerce Income and population restrictions apply. Community Economic Revitalization Board WA Department of Description: CERB provides loan funding to Commerce Public-Private local jurisdictions for public infrastructure to Partnerships support private business growth and expansion. Cooperating Technical Partnership Program Federal Emergency Outreach Description: The program creates partnerships Management Agency

between FEMA and qualified local and state (FEMA) Data Collection and partners to create, maintain, and publicize up- Analysis to-date flood and other hazard maps and data. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund WA Department of Description: The Drinking Water State Health Revolving Fund (DWSRF) provides loans to / Drinking Water drinking water systems to pay for WA Department of System Improvements infrastructure improvements. In some cases, Commerce partial loan forgiveness is offered. Emergency Watershed Protection Program Natural Resource Erosion Prevention Description: Emergency recovery measures for Conservation Service and Restoration runoff retardation and erosion prevention to (NRCS)

41 Other Infrastructure Retrofit includes many projects, such as water system seismic upgrades, bridge retrofits, and roadway retrofits. 182

Points of Contact

Common Eligible Projects Federal

/ /

Mitigation Programs State 41

FuelsReduction Space Defensible Property Elevation Utility Undergrounding Critical Facility Generator Structural Retrofit Infrastructure Other Retrofit Source Water or Protection Aquifer Recharge orSlope Bank Stabilization Feasibility Study, Mapping, and Design Planning (Hazard Mitigation or Other) Flood Risk Reduction Project Other relieve imminent hazards created by a natural disaster. Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program Department of Fish Salmon Recovery Description: ESRP provides funding restoration and Wildlife (WA and protection efforts in Puget Sound, including DFW) Ecosystem projects such as flood storage, erosion control, Restoration and climate resilience measures. Firewise Fuel Mitigation Grant Program WA Department of Description: The Fuel Mitigation Grant Natural Resources provides a cost share for communities engaged in defensible space and fuels reduction projects. Floodplains by Design WA Department of Description: Floodplains by Design is the Ecology primary grant program for projects that reduce flood hazards while restoring the natural functions that Washington rivers and floodplains provide. Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program FEMA Description: FMA provides funding to local / Advance jurisdictions and states for projects and WA Emergency d planning that reduces or eliminates long-term Management Assistanc risk of flood damage to structures insured e Only under the NFIP. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program FEMA Description: HMGP is authorized statewide / after a disaster declaration and is the most WA Emergency 5% flexible of FEMA’s three mitigation programs. Management Initiative Miscellaneous Jurisdictions must have an approved hazard Only mitigation plan and projects must be cost effective. Combined Water Quality Funding Program U.S. EPA Description: Fund sources for projects / Drinking Water and associated with publicly-owned wastewater and WA Department of Wastewater System stormwater facilities. The integrated program Ecology Improvements also funds nonpoint source pollution control activities.

183

Points of Contact

Common Eligible Projects Federal

/ /

Mitigation Programs State 41

FuelsReduction Space Defensible Property Elevation Utility Undergrounding Critical Facility Generator Structural Retrofit Infrastructure Other Retrofit Source Water or Protection Aquifer Recharge orSlope Bank Stabilization Feasibility Study, Mapping, and Design Planning (Hazard Mitigation or Other) Flood Risk Reduction Project Other Post-Fire Hazard Mitigation Grant Program FEMA Description: Program authorized following a / Post-Fire Ecological Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) WA Emergency Restoration declaration. Program focuses on wildfire risk Management and post-fire risk mitigation, including fuels Culvert Upsizing reduction and post-fire flood control projects. Program prioritizes the county receiving the Rain Gauges FMAG declaration. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program FEMA Description: Annual program for cost-effective / Miscellaneous mitigation projects and plans. Jurisdiction must WA Emergency have a current mitigation plan to be eligible. Management Public Works Board WA Department of Description: Low-interest loans for pre- Commerce construction or new construction for replacement/repair of infrastructure for stormwater, solid waste, road, or bridge projects. Emergency loans are available for public projects made necessary by a disaster or imminent threat to public health and safety. Rural Community Assistance Corporation Rural Community Description: Water, wastewater, stormwater, Assistance and solid waste planning; environmental work; Corporation to assist in developing an application for infrastructure improvements for small, rural communities. Rural Water Revolving Loan Fund National Rural Water Description: The RWLF provides low-cost loans Association Drinking Water and for short-term repair costs, small capital Wastewater System projects, or pre-development costs associated Improvements with larger projects to small, rural communities. Source Water Protection Grant Program WA Department of Description: Projects and studies to identify Health solutions to source water protection problems, / implement protection plans, or update data that WA Department of directly benefits source water protection. Commerce Washington Transportation Improvement Transportation Board Improvement Board

184

Points of Contact

Common Eligible Projects Federal

/ /

Mitigation Programs State 41

FuelsReduction Space Defensible Property Elevation Utility Undergrounding Critical Facility Generator Structural Retrofit Infrastructure Other Retrofit Source Water or Protection Aquifer Recharge orSlope Bank Stabilization Feasibility Study, Mapping, and Design Planning (Hazard Mitigation or Other) Flood Risk Reduction Project Other Description: TIB makes and manages street construction and maintenance grants to 320 cities and urban counties. Urban and Community Forest Program U.S. Department of Natural Resource Description: Program provides technical, Agriculture Protection financial, research and educational services to / local jurisdictions and organizations for the WA Department of Public Information preservation, protection, and restoration of Natural Resources and Education forestlands.

185

List of Acronyms

DOH Washington Department of Health

EMD Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWS National Weather Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

DOT Washington Department of Transportation

ARES Amateur Radio Emergency Services

WSP Washington State Police

WSU Washington State University

DOE Washington Department of Ecology

DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NPS National Park Service

USFS United States Forest Service

ROS Rate of Spread

WUI Wildland Urban Interface

WFI Wildland Fire Intensity

HFR Historic Fire Regime

VCC Vegetation Condition Class

NMI Northwest Management, Incorporated

MHMP Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

NETCHD North East Tri-County Health District

186

This plan was developed by Northwest Management, Inc. under contract with Stevens County Emergency Management.

Copies of this Plan can be obtained by contacting:

Stevens County Emergency Management Director Stevens County Emergency Management Department 260 S. Oak, Courthouse Annex Colville, WA 99114 Phone: 509-684-7543 Citation of this work:

Tucker, Brad. Lead Author. Stevens County, Washington Hazard Mitigation Plan. Northwest Management, Inc., Moscow, Idaho. March 2019. Pp 186.

Northwest Management, Inc. 208-883-4488 Telephone

233 East Palouse River Drive 208-883-1098 Fax

PO Box 9748 [email protected]

Moscow ID 83843 http://www.NorthwestManagementInc.com/

187