County of Nez Perce

ALL HAZARD MITIGATI ON PLAN A January 2020

INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONS OF: Lewiston Culdesac Peck (in the State of Idaho)

0 1 TITLE PAGE County of Nez Perce ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Including the Jurisdictions of: Lewiston Culdesac Peck (in the State of Idaho)

APPROVED - January 21, 2020 - January 20, 2025 UPDATE: March 24, 2021

Submitted by:

Nez Perce County All Hazards Mitigation Plan Steering Committee

&

Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management

Approved date: January 21, 2020

Cover Photo Credit: Molly Konen – NPC Imaging Dept County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 2 TITLETABLE PAGE OF CONTENTS

Title Page ...... 1 Table of Contents ...... 2 Mission Statement ...... 3 Background ...... 4 Purpose ...... 5 Definitions ...... 6 Methodology ...... 7 Limitations ...... 15 Community Profile ...... 17 Planning Process ...... 24 Risk Score Numeric Ranking ...... 27 Overview of Threats, Hazards, Risks & Vulnerabilities ...... 28 Discussion of Threats, Hazards, Risks & Vulnerabilities ...... 31 Overview of Proposed Mitigation Projects ...... 61 Prioritization ...... 63 Discussion of Proposed Mitigation Projects ...... 64 Adoption Process ...... 89 Plan Maintenance ...... 90 Resources Used ...... 91 Conclusion ...... 92 Appendix A: Adoptions ...... 94 Appendix B: Flood Ordinance #98 ...... 98 Appendix C: Discussion of Select Grants ...... 124 Appendix D: Questionnaire ...... 132 Appendix E: Geologic Hazards Study ...... 135 Appendix F: Nez Perce County Soils Report ...... 141 Appendix G: Capabilities Assessment Tool ...... 148

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 3 TITLEMISSION PAGE STATEMENT

The goal of the Nez Perce County All Hazards Mitigation Plan is to:

 Quantify and qualify the Threats and Hazards faced by the residents, agencies, interests and jurisdictions within Nez Perce County.

 Bring visibility to both the Risks and Vulnerabilities faced by the same.

 Engage stakeholders, through a whole community approach, in leveraging strategies to protect, prevent and mitigate against these Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities.

 Create a useable, readable, plain language plan which clearly presents stakeholders with valid pertinent information without resorting to complex terms and industry specific language. Our hope is that this plan can be picked up a member of the community at large and read from cover to cover without additional assistance.

 Provide a platform which satisfies applicable state and federal guidelines so as to create access to grant funds and funding streams to realize the projects contained herein.

All for the purpose of lessening the impacts to Life, Health, Safety, Property and the ability of the county and its agencies to deliver essential service; so that the residents of Nez Perce county might continue to enjoy the benefit of a safe and prosperous community.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 4 TITLEBACKGROUND PAGE

Nez Perce County, through its Civil Defense Coordinator (and later its Office of Emergency Management) has maintained some version of Countywide Mitigation Plan for several decades. The previous plan was written in 2003, adopted in 2004, revised in 2009, and again in 2014. There was however, no yearly maintenance of the plan. The previous versions of the plan focused solely on natural Hazards and relied heavily on data from the decades previous flowed into now obsolete prediction and modeling software to predict future Threats.

In addition, that iteration of the plan lacked a unified approach for quantifying the Threats and Hazards faced by the community.

In early 2017 an outside contractor was selected to assist the county in moving forward and a series of meetings were held. Ultimately, the stakeholders involved did not feel that the contractor captured their concerns and was not adequately engaged in the process.

With the hiring of a new Emergency Management Director in early 2018, and upon review of the lack of progress through the selected contractor, it was the decision of the County to move forward with a completely re-written plan drafted with resources within the County, and the Cities therein.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 5 TITLEPURPOSE PAGE

The purpose of an All Hazards Mitigation Plan is to provide a common framework for the discussion of the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced within a jurisdiction. It is also to provide stakeholders with a clear understanding of the projects proposed to offset that Risk and show the prioritization that the stakeholders feel is appropriate to each project.

In addition it is the hope of the Nez Perce County AHMP Steering Team and expectation of the stakeholders that sacrificially participated in this process, that each of the jurisdictions referenced in this plan formally adopt the plan recognizing its importance to their particular jurisdiction and citizens.

Following adoption it is the hope of the planners that the jurisdictions will recognize the work that has gone in to this process, as a product that their own particular stakeholders have provided input to, and as a result that future capital projects and expenditures will be directed at the local level in regard to the projects, assessments and analysis contained herein.

At no time is this plan offered as a “one size fits all” assessment. Rather, it seeks to aggregate data and form a holistic picture of Risk and Vulnerability; with special emphasis on areas of the county which face an increased Risk or Vulnerability to a particular Threat or Hazard for one or more reasons.

This Plan satisfies the requirements for a local multi-Hazard mitigation plan and flood mitigation plan under 44 CFR Part 201.6 and 79.6 and serves as the Community Wildfire Protection Plan under 44 CFR part 201 and 206.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 6 TITLEDEFINITIONS PAGE

Throughout this plan, certain words are used which have specific meaning within the All Hazards Mitigation Plan planning process or within Emergency Management in general. To avoid confusion, please find a list of common phrases found though this plan, their definitions and meanings. In the event that there is a question or concern about the language choices used, we encourage you to reach out to the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management at: [email protected]

Hazard: A naturally occurring or human-induced process or event with the potential to create loss, i.e. a general source of danger. (Environmental Hazards—Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. 2nd ed. Pg 10 Smith, Keith. Routledge, NY 1996)

Risk: The potential losses associated with a hazard and, defined in terms of expected probability and frequency, exposure, and consequences (Multihazard Risk Assessment, pg xxi, FEMA, 1997)

Threat: A natural or man-made occurrence, individual, entity, or action that has or indicates the potential to harm life, information, operations, the environment and/or property. (DHS Risk Lexicon, Department of Homeland Security, pg 33 2008)

Vulnerability: The extent to which a community, structure, service, or geographic area is likely to be damaged or disrupted by the impact of a particular disaster hazard, on account of their nature, construction, and proximity to hazardous terrain or a disaster-prone area. (Penultimate Glossary of Emergency Management Terms. Claremont, CA: The Simeon Institute 1998)

All Hazards: An approach for prevention, protection, preparedness, response, and recovery that addresses a full range of threats and hazards, including domestic terrorist attacks, natural and manmade disasters, accidental disruptions, and other emergencies. (National Infrastructure Protection Plan pg 103, Department of Homeland Security 2006)

ACRONYMS USED:

AOCI – Area of City Impact PD - Police Department

BOCC – Board of County Commissioners L - Lewiston (i.e LPD is Lewiston Police Department) FD- Fire Department NPC – Nez Perce County FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency NPSWCD – Nez Perce Soil and Water FPD – Fire Protection District Conservation District

IDL – Idaho Department of Lands OEM – Office of Emergency Management IOEM – Idaho Office of Emergency Management

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 7 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE

This section discusses the Methodology used in the creation of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan and is broken down by core concepts:

Overview Nez Perce County has had a Hazards Mitigation Plan in one fashion or another for the last several decades. Upon review, the Steering Committee realized that between a combination of obsolete methodology and reliance on outdated guidance, it was time for a complete re-write of the plan, as opposed to a revision of the existing 2012 Plan, which we have endeavored to do herein.

Previous versions of the Mitigation Plan focused solely on natural Hazards. In today’s world, and in line with current best practice, natural Hazards only compromise one of the three Threat/Hazard classes. As such we felt it necessary to include a comprehensive discussion of Man-made and Technological Threats and Hazards, which allows this plan to truly be an All Hazards Mitigation Plan (hereafter: “AHMP”)

A note on terms: As mentioned in the section prior, our goal is to create a “plain language” plan which can have broad application across the whole community of stakeholders. However, there are certain terms, as previously defined, which do require specific definitions in their employment within this plan. Threat, Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability are among the most important.

The terms “Threat” and “Hazard” are often used interchangeably. More correctly, a Hazard is defined as a process or event whereas a Threat is more correctly viewed as impact.1 For example, a hurricane would be a Hazard. The hurricane providing enough rain to raise the water level of a retention area and overwhelm the levies would be a Threat. The intersection between Threat and Hazard is called “Risk”.2 Lack of preparation or mitigation or particular weakness to a Threat, Hazard or Risk is called “Vulnerability”. “There are three components of risk – the magnitude of loss, the chance of loss, and the exposure of loss.” 3 Risk & Vulnerability may be offset or mitigated by prevention and/or preparation.4

1 Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters, and U.S. Emergency Management, Emergency Management Institute, FEMA 2 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Guide, FEMA 3 Taking Risks: The management of uncertainty pg 10; MacCrimmon and Wehrung, Free Press, NY. 1986, 10) 4 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201 2nd Edition, August 2013, FEMA County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 8 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

Before a jurisdiction can determine and prioritize its mitigation projects, it must first ask “For what Risks are we migrating against?”. Knowing that requires a jurisdiction to have a complete and accurate assessment of its Risks. To that end, the County determined to walk through a comprehensive Jurisdictional Threat Assessment process using methodology as outlined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (Hereafter: “FEMA”) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201 (hereafter: “CPG 201”).

Stakeholder Selection The first step in that process was to identify the principal agencies and individuals within those agencies to provide direction and oversight to the plan creation process. A Steering Committee comprised of one representative each from the Nez Perce County: Geographic Information Systems (hereafter: “GIS”), Planning Department and the Office of Emergency Management were identified by Board of County Commissioners as the principal steering committee members; with overall leadership assigned to the Director of the Office of Emergency Management.

Once formed, that Steering Committee’s next task was to identify stakeholders throughout the county and the surrounding area who would have the necessary data and knowledge to help form an accurate picture of the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced by the County. We were gratified by the high level of participation we received from the invited stakeholders. We achieved engagement with 67 individuals representing 7 separate jurisdictions and 48 separate agencies, as well as citizen participation. The majority of those participated though several or all stages of the planning and assessment process. On behalf of the County of Nez Perce, we would like to extend our sincere appreciation to all for their efforts to make the county a safer and more resilient community.

The stakeholders who participated in the planning process meetings are as follows:

Agency Representative Position Nez Perce County Office of Grant DiCianni Director Emergency Management Nez Perce County Planning & Alison Tompkins Planner Building Department

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 9 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

Nez Perce County GIS Bill Reynolds GIS Coordinator Department Nez Perce County Board of Doug Zenner County Commissioner County Commissioners Nez Perce County Board of Doug Havens County Commissioner County Commissioners Nez Perce County Soil and Water Lynn Rasmusen Director Conservation District Nez Perce County Sherriff’s Office Bryce Skrimsher Chief Deputy Nez Perce County Sherriff’s Office Eric Blinn Lieutenant Nez Perce County Sherriff’s Office Jason Lee Admin Lieutenant Nez Perce County Fire Josh Hall Chief Department Nez Perce County Fire Jason McCarthy Deputy Chief Department Nez Perce County Road and Mark Ridinger Director Bridge Department Nez Perce County Auditors Office Margie Kinzel Accounting Coordinator Nez Perce County Coroner Josh Hall Coroner Nez Perce County Building Dept Richard Bigelow Building Official Nez Perce County Auxiliary Tyler Williams Team Leader Communications Team Arrow Fire District Jim Finley Chief City of Lewiston Alan Nygard City Manager City of Lewiston Carol Maurer Public Information Officer City of Lewiston Angela VanderPas GIS Specialist City of Lewiston Ged Randall City Council Member City of Lewiston Fire Department Travis Myklebust Chief City of Lewiston Police Budd Hurd Interim Chief Department City of Lewiston Police Brain Birdsell Detective Department City of Lewiston Public Works Chris Davies Director Lewiston Independent School Lance Hansen Asst. Superintendent District Port of Lewiston David Doeringsfeld Port Manager City of Peck Tami Firzlaff Clerk/Treasurer Big Canyon Fire Protection District Jim O’Connell Deputy Chief Big Canyon Fire Protection District John Lazzarini Firefighter Wheatland Fire Protection District Bill Hobbs Chief Wheatland Fire Protection District John Thompson Asst. Chief City of Culdesac Noreen Durante Clerk/Treasurer City of Culdesac Fire Department Gary Gilliam Chief City of Culdesac Fire Department Brain Bromar Asst. Chief 911 Commission Dave Taylor E911 Coordinator Nelson Timber Management Doug Nelson Lead Forester St Joseph Regional Hospital Dyana Blood Emergency Manager Clearwater Paper Dave Church Health and Safety Manager Clearwater Paper Fire Department Brad Hukriede Chief Public Health - District 2 Dean Nuefeld Preparedness Program Manager Nez Perce Tribe John Wheaton Emergency Manager Nez Perce Tribe Tim Droegmiller Fire Management Officer Nez Perce Tribe Jeff Handel Fire Management Officer Idaho Office of Emergency Lorrie Pahl Mitigation Planner Management Idaho Office of Emergency Rob Feeley Area Field Officer Management Idaho Transportation Department Mike Ahlers Safety Compliance Officer County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 10 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

Idaho State Police Lonnie Richardson Captain Idaho Fish & Game Don Jenkins District Superintendent (Acting) Idaho Department of Lands Jerimiah Miller Craig Mountain Fire Warden Idaho Department of Lands Jed Pentzler Asst, Warden Idaho Department of Lands Jay Silva Area Manager Department of Environmental Nicolas Hiebert Staff Engineer Quality Lewis Clark State College Barbara Pierce Director of Safety Lewis County Bob West Emergency Manager Asotin County Mark Janowski Emergency Manager Asotin County Sherriff’s Office John Hilderbrand Sheriff United State Army Corps of Jeff Stidham Disaster Response Manager Engineers – Walla Walla District United State Army Corps of Jason Achziger Natural Resources Manager Engineers – Clarkston Field Office National Weather Service Andy Brown Lead Forecaster National Guard – IDARNG Michael Etzler Major 145th BSB National Guard – IDARNG Chad Crosby Sgt 145th BSB Idaho Food Bank Chico McKinney Agency Relations Supervisor CCI/Speer Chris Katus Company Representative Pacific Steel and Recycling Danny Gandy Company Representative Jordan Smith Citizen Nancy Randall Citizen

As part of this process, we identified several agencies which had a vested interest in the entire cycle of mitigation (from Risk Assessment, through to actually carrying out mitigation projects). These were identified by their: function, their historical involvement in mitigation projects, their current need for mitigation work and finally their expressed interest to be a member of the project planning team. These stakeholders formed the Mitigation Project Planning Team and were asked to prepare mitigation projects for the top 12 ranked Threats and Hazards within the county for presentation to the stakeholders at large. The Mitigation Project Planning Team was as follows:

Agency Representative Position Nez Perce County Office of Grant DiCianni Director Emergency Management Nez Perce County Planning & Alison Tompkins Lead Planner Building Department Nez Perce County GIS Bill Reynolds Lead GIS Specialist Department Nez Perce County Board of Doug Zenner County Commissioner County Commissioners Idaho Department of Lands Jeremiah Miller Craigmont Area Fire Warden Nez Perce County Soil and Water Lynn Rasmusen Director Conservation District Nez Perce County Sherriff’s Office Bryce Skrimsher Chief Deputy Nez Perce County Fire Josh Hall Chief Department City of Lewiston Fire Department Travis Myklebust Chief City of Lewiston Public Works Chris Davies Director County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 11 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

City of Peck Nancy Greene Mayor Big Canyon Fire Protection District Randy Mass Chief City of Culdesac Noreen Durante City Clerk/Treasurer 911 Commission Dave Taylor E911 Coordinator Nelson Timber Management Doug Nelson Lead Forrester St Joseph Regional Hospital Dyana Blood Emergency Manager Nez Perce Tribe Jeff Handel Fire Management Officer United State Army Corps of Jeff Stidham Disaster Response Manager Engineers – Walla Walla District (Note, the Mitigation Project Planning Team were the lead individuals tasked with determining mitigation projects for consideration, they were not necessarily the individuals who attended the meetings on behalf of the entity, those are found beginning on page 8)

Timeline The steering team met in mid-February 2018 to determine the timeline and schedule to move forward on the creation of the plan. We were aware of a June 30, 2018 deadline to submit this plan to the State of Idaho which necessitated an aggressive schedule. At that time it was decided that our first priority was to complete a thorough review of the existing plan to note: areas of past concern, progress and historical data. That review was completed in March 2018.

Following that review, the next step was to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to provide a whole community perspective on the Threats and Hazards faced within Nez Perce County. Due to the large and disparate number of stakeholders, this was achieved through four separate outreach meetings that occurred on April 25, 2018. The first meeting was of the City of Lewiston and Nez Perce County first responders, elected officials and other jurisdictional stakeholders. The second meeting was for our state, federal and regional stakeholders, as well as for the jurisdictions of Peck & Culdesac. (Unfortunately, despite over 16 separate invitations by email and phone during this process, the City of Lapwai and its agencies declined to participate. The decision was made to move forward with a plan that would address the needs of the county and its jurisdictions, less the City of Lapwai proper.) The third meeting held was for Industry stakeholders and the fourth and final meeting was for public outreach. This fourth meeting was advertised in both the Lewiston Tribune (April 22, 2018 Northwest Section Page 8C) and during the April 23, 2018 live news broadcasts of the county’s largest TV station KLEW where the public was invited, and did in fact attend, that feedback was included herein.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 12 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

The Threat and Hazard Assessment Process During those meetings described above, representatives from the Steering Committee provided attendees an education on the AHMP planning process, the Jurisdictional Threat Assessment Process and a review of the methodology that would be used to rank the Threats and Hazards faced within the county.

We were gratified at the high participation and attendance from a wide variety of stakeholders, including all levels of local and county government, first response agencies, industry partners; as well as state, regional, tribal and federal partners, and interested citizens of the county. In short, we collected 48 separate surveys from 41 separate agencies, jurisdictions and agencies, including every municipality in the county, save the City of Lapwai as noted above. A special thanks as well to Alison Tompkins (NPC Planning Dept) and Lynn Rasmussen (NPSWCD) for their invaluable assistance in this process.

During these meetings we used FEMA’s list of Natural, Manmade & Technological Hazards found in the FEMA Threat and Hazards and Risk Assessment Identification Guide (August 2013) with the following modifications: - Due to the unusually high number of levees and dams within the county, the steering team felt it most appropriate to break the doctrinal “Flood/Dams/Levees” category into three separate categories. Therefore, our Risk Assessment process asked stakeholders to look at each as a separate Threat/Hazard. - Based on the advice of the Office of Emergency Management, the stakeholders were also asked to consider the impact of the following on the county: Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP), Civil Unrest or Disturbance and Other Mass Casualty Event. - Finally, during the stakeholder engagement meetings, it was proposed and consensus reached, to add the following Threats/Hazards as separate events for the purpose of determining Risk: Severe Strom and Communications Failure. As was shown by the collected data, this suggestion provided invaluable input into the final product.

Within each of these Threat/Hazards, the stakeholders were asked to provide numeric feedback on likelihood of the event happening within the county and then to provide numeric feedback on a pre-explained scale of the likely impact to the jurisdiction in the areas of: Life/Health/Safety, Property and the Impact of County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 13 TITLEMETHODOLOGY PAGE cont…

the Delivery of Essential Services (per the FEMA Mitigation Independent Study Course Hazard Analysis Worksheet – Appendix D).

Once that data was obtained, it was aggregated and a clear numerical ranking of the Threats and Hazards faced by the county and its sub-jurisdictions became clear. That information is published on page 27 of this plan. From there, the top 12 Threats and Hazards facing Nez Perce County were identified and form the bulk of the considerations of this plan.

Following that process, select stakeholders were again asked to convene in a single meeting to help the county understand the context of the Threats and Hazards faced. For example, it is one thing to say that a jurisdiction faces a Risk from Wildfire, but are all areas of the jurisdiction equally at Risk? During all times of the year? Under what conditions is such a Risk likely to increase or decrease?

This Context meeting occurred on May 21, 2018 and provided fascinating insight as to the nature of the Threats and Hazards faced as well as revealed areas of both strength and weakness for the county, it’s sub-jurisdictions, response agencies and stakeholder partners. It also revealed a very interesting divide between generational fears and concerns based on historical data as well as objective processes. For example, there were several times where a stakeholder perceived a heightened or lowered Risk based on nothing more the intuitional or generational memory. This meeting provided both an incredible data gathering opportunity as well as a formidable chance to educate stakeholders with fact based considerations.

Once this context data was captured, a third and final planning meeting was proposed to present the data obtained on Threats and Hazards throughout the county in a contextual way and solicit suggestions for specific mitigation projects that could be undertaken in response to these Risks and Vulnerabilities. That meeting occurred on June 08, 2018 and is discussed in detail below.

CWPP Incorporation As a part of this process, Nez Perce County was approached by the Idaho Department of Lands (hereafter: “IDL”) and asked to incorporate it’s Countywide Wildfire Protection Plan (hereafter: “CWPP”) into the AHMP. To County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 14 TITLELIMITATIONSMETHODOLOGYLIMITATIONS PAGE cont…

facilitate that on May 22, 2018, the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management (hereafter: “NPC OEM”), in partnership with IDL hosted a meeting of all County fire protection agencies, as well as IDL, Nez Perce County Soil and Water Conservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Idaho Office of Emergency Management and the Asotin County Office of Emergency Management (See page 31) to discuss the updating of the CWPP and to discuss specific wildfire mitigation plans. That CWWP is incorporated into this plan (see pages 31-38 and 61-64). The Steering Team wishes to extend its thanks to IDL Fire Warden Jeremiah Miller for excellent facilitation of that meeting.

The Project Proposal Process The meeting where these projects were presented, as noted above, occurred on June 08, 2018 for the purpose of presenting specific mitigation projects for consideration. Discussion of the projects produced by that meeting can be found on pages 61-64 of this plan.

Plan Completion Once the Threat Hazard Assessment was completed, context for each of the Threats and Hazards were captured and stakeholders had the ability to present projects for inclusion in the plan. The Steering Committee met on June 11, 2018 to provide a division of labor for crafting the plan. It was agreed that the Planning Department representative would handle the section dealing with Flooding and NFIP compliance, the GIS representative would provide maps and data and the Office of Emergency Management representative would provide most of the plan coordination as well as serve as the primary author of the plan.

The plan was completed in draft form on June 29, 2018 and submitted to stakeholders for their review, comments and/or corrections. Changes were made in response to received feedback and the plan was submitted to the State of Idaho Office of Emergency Management Mitigation Section in compliance with the previously discussed due date.

The Steering Committee would like to express their sincere gratitude to Amy Ledgerwood from the Nez Perce County Auditors office for her excellent and tireless work to track hours and costs associated with this Plan.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 15 TITLELIMITATIONS PAGE

In this process, the county and the planning team faced several challenges:

1. Due to a prolonged vacancy in the Director of Emergency Management role, the planning process was slowed for many months. In addition, the contractor hired to perform the update did not complete its obligations. This shifted responsibility for the plan back to the incoming Director of Emergency Management, who began his role mid-January 2018. Due to the deadline for submitting the plan, much had to be done in a compressed and accelerated fashion. As part of the accelerated planning process, there were some secondary and tertiary stakeholders (i.e. local business and select non-profits) who were invited to join in the planning process, however due to their own schedules were unable to participate.

However it is the planning team’s belief that while the process was accelerated due to the deadline imposed on the county, the end product is still of a high quality and useful by the county and its associated stakeholders.

Moving forward, it is the expectation of the Steering Committee to ensure an annual plan update. Public comment and stakeholder engagement which will occur as outlined on page 82 will ensure that the planning process moves forward regardless of staff changeover.

2. The county is in the process of digitizing many of its archived records as to Threat and Hazard historical impact and as such, much of that data was not readily available for the Planning Team’s use.

While the digitizing process did hamper the planning component, it is expected that any lack created from the unavailability of the certain data points will be remedied during the first plan update in 2019.

3. The Threat Matrix and subsequent recommendations, contained herein, is partly a subjective process and may not be entirely in line with past expectations or future events.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 16 TITLELIMITATIONS PAGE cont…

However, creating any Threat Matrix is partly a subjective process because they require a projection of what might occur, given a series of events and the likely resulting impacts of those events.

4. All plans, assessments and Threat Hazard Analysis contain some level of “bias” from the stakeholders involved either based on their background, training and/or experience. As a Steering Team, we tried to “balance” these biases both by recognizing them and also by utilizing specialists with a broad section of training and experience.

We feel confident that due to the high degree of participation in the plan from stakeholder as well as the variety of stakeholders consulted, the data that resulted is able to present a good aggregate of the Threats, Hazards, Risks and vulnerabilities faced by the county and its sub-jurisdictions.

As a Steering Team, we express these limitations both for the sake of transparency and also that any flaws in the plan can be easily identified and remedied in subsequent iterations of the plan.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 17 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE

Nez Perce County Idaho is a community of 40,385 people (2017 estimate) distributed through 856 sq mile of rolling hills, steep gorges, winding rivers, fierce rapids and pasture land as far as the eye can see. Within the county there are 4 incorporated cities – Lewiston (population 32,872 (2016 estimate)), Lapwai (population 1,148 (2016 estimate), Culdesac (population 376 (2016 estimate)) and Peck (198 (2016 estimate)) as well as number of unincorporated subdivisions such as: Spaulding, Arrow, Waha & Lenore, just to name a few.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 18 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

The people who inhabit this land are a hearty, independent lot who pride themselves on hard work, independence and self-reliance. Farm fields, ranching operations, light industry and manufacturing are the predominate drivers of the economy. Family and community play key roles in the area. Tourism continues to be a large driver for the area and the sound of jetboats and fishing stories ring loudly throughout the summer months, giving way to some of the finest hunting to be found in Idaho during the fall.

A portion of the county is also home to the Nimiipuu (hereafter: “Nez Perce”) Tribe of Native Americans and holds several key sites that are part of their current cultural as well as of historic significance. (Steering Committee note: The Nez Perce tribe participates in its own AHMP separate from the county so we note with gratitude their participation in our planning process as well). The county derives its name from the tribe’s presence in the county and is as an entity actually older then the state of Idaho (a fact noted in the Governor’s 2011 proclamation marking the county’s 150th anniversary).

The area is collectively referred to as either th “Palouse” in reference to its fertile hills and plateaus or the “Lewis-Clark Valley” in reference to its description in The Journal of Lewis and Clark. It was those explorers who are credited with “discovering” the valley area. Lewiston, the county seat and Clarkston in neighboring Washington State pay tribute to their historic journey. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 19 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

Sub-Jurisdictional Profiles

Lewiston The City of Lewiston (founded in 1861) sits at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers in the North Central portion of the State of Idaho. It is immediately opposite Clarkston, WA and can access the same through three bridges spanning the rivers. Lewiston was the first capital of Idaho and is also a primary destination for fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts looking to access both its rivers and Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. It boasts several key arms and armament manufacturing locations and is home to Clearwater Paper’s largest paper mill. These industries along with healthcare, education, government, manufacturing and tourism provide much of the employment to the region. Lewiston is also home to Lewis Clark State College, the NAIA World Series and the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Regional Airport.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 20 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

Lapwai The City of Lapwai has existed in some form or other for decades before it’s formal incorporation in 1911. Lapwai is the capital city of the Nez Perce Nation. Its name is derived from the sound made by the wings of a butterfly in flight, giving homage to the fact that the surrounding countryside once teemed with butterflies. Despite being the tribal seat of the Nez Perce Tribe, over 23 tribes are represented within its borders.

Culdesac The City of Culdesac was officially called Magnolia until 1902 when the residents petitioned to use instead its colloquial moniker (as bestowed by Charles Mellon of the Northern Pacific Railroad who called the area a cul-de- sac), referring to the French term for a place with only one outlet. Today the city of Culdesac is located at the geographical center of Nez Perce County and

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 21 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

originally was one of two towns (Mellon was the other) created to support the growing railroad presence in the area. Today it is a bedroom community of Lewiston, ID.

Peck The City of Peck (founded as a homestead in 1896 and officially established in 1899) is in the northeast-most corner of the county, just west of Clearwater County. Originally one of the most prosperous cities in the area, it served as a clearing point for the grain growers in the surrounding areas. Today it is a bedroom community of Orofino, ID in neighboring Clearwater County.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 22 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

Nez Perce County boasts a rich history from America’s frontier days and continues to be an agricultural center of America with some 2 billion dollars of grain exports yearly. Within the County one will also find the region’s primary hospital, airport, manufacturing center and largest metropolitan area for over 100 miles in any direction. It is the 9th most populated county in Idaho and part of the Lewiston-WA metropolitan statistical area. Nez Perce County is also home to several of the Nez Perce Tribe’s most important endeavors, such as their salmon and steelhead fish hatchery and Clearwater Casino. The county is also home to Idaho’s only seaport, the Port of Lewiston.

Nez Perce County hosts a variety of first response agencies, including a mix of career and volunteer agencies. All told, there are 4 law enforcement, 8 Fire and 2 EMS agencies that are present within the county’s borders, offering a varied patchwork of response capabilities.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 23 TITLECOMMUNITY PAGE PROFILE cont…

Geography and Topography

The geography of the county is wide and varied. Its highest elevation sits at 5,380ft and its lowest sits at 710ft. The county is 33.9 miles wide by 53.8 miles long and sits in the shape of an inverted “L”. It is bordered by Latah County to the North, Lewis County to the South, Clearwater County to the East, Idaho County to its extreme southeastern tip, the State of Oregon to its southwestern edge and the State of Washington (Aostin County) directly to its West.

The county contains a wide variety of rivers, streams, hills, valleys, timber, prairie grasses, riparian and agriculture areas. It is also home to both the Hell’s Canyon Recreation Area and the Craig Mountain Wildlife Management Area.

Nez Perce County Hillshade maps, 2018

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 24 TITLEPLANNING PAGE PROCESS

As discussed in the Methodology Section above, the Planning Process began with selecting a Steering Team first. Historically, that team has been the Nez Perce County Emergency Manager, GIS Coordinator and County Planner. We saw no reason to alter that configuration for this planning process.

To begin, the Steering Team referred to the list of Threats and Hazards found in the CPG 201, as previously identified, with the alterations that were listed in the Methodology section.

In determining which stakeholders to invite to the table we leaned heavily on the idea of creating a broad cross section of stakeholders from all of the phases of preparedness. While some of the agencies represented have their mission set solely in one area (i.e. Response) we did try to engage stakeholders whose mission set straddled one or more areas (i.e. The Nez Perce County Soil and Water Conservation District whose mission branches across the Mitigation, Response and Recovery mission areas). Our primary criteria was that stakeholders must:

1. Have a clear and defined interest in the county, or surrounding area. 2. Must have a clear delegation of authority, regulatory function or mission focused on some phase of Disaster Preparedness, Response or Recovery. 3. Have insight into the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced by the county or a part thereof. 4. Be willing to engage in the All Hazards Mitigation Plan planning process. Once the stakeholders were identified and invited to the initial meeting, they were provided with an overview of the AHMP planning process, including a clear explanation of their participation, the end result and the value to their organization from participating in the process. It was clearly explained that goal of the planning process was to generate transparency about the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced throughout the County, as well as crafting specific strategies for preventing, protecting and mitigating the occurrence or impact of those.

The feedback from the participants evidenced a high degree of willingness to walk through the entirety of the planning process; for which the Steering Team was grateful. As many of the stakeholders were first time participants in

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 25 TITLEPLANNING PAGE PROCESS cont…

the AHMP planning process, the Steering Team felt it productive to provide a large amount of education and training during this process. This was responded to positivity by the stakeholders.

As defined in the methodology above, the stakeholders were divided into 4 separate meetings, provided an overview of the process and walked through completion of a three page Threat Hazard Analysis (see Appendix F). This analysis asked them to quantify the likelihood of Threats and Hazards occurring within the county and then to rank the likely impact should such an event impact the county across three separate areas: Life/Health/Safety, Property and Ability of the County to Deliver Essential Services.

Stakeholders were encouraged to recall their experiences both in their professional life and what they remembered from their personal life in evaluating the impact of these Threats and Hazards. We were fortunate that the stakeholders represented not only a broad range in terms of function, but also in terms of age, and location throughout the county. Several stakeholders were able to recall first hand historical occurrences stretching back several decades previous or had been in the area for generations and were able to leverage generational knowledge about the impacts of various events.

With the advent of several key features within the area (Dworshak Dam, the Lewiston Levees, etc) it was interesting to see how the perception of Threats and Hazards have changed in the intervening decades. It also called into the question some of the past modeling which had relied on data which was invalidated by the significant changes wrought on the landscape over the last few decades. For example, previous to the installation of Dworshak Dam, many residents remember when ice flows would jam up the river creating navigation concerns and flooding which no longer exist today due to the temperature regulating features of the dam.

It was also fascinating how the various stakeholders defined certain Threats/Hazards based on their personal experience elsewhere. For example, those who were newer to the area had a much higher concern about certain events such as Active Shooter and Earthquake (which are statistically low frequency events in Northern Idaho) but a much lower concern about events such as Flood or Severe Storm, which historically have had a more severe impact in terms of injury and economic loss.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 26 TITLEPLANNING PAGE PROCESS cont…

In response to these varying perspectives, the Steering Team did not try to achieve consensus about the Threats and Hazards but let each participant score the Threats and Hazards separately, based on their experience, concerns and knowledge. During the Context and Projects Phases, discussion about the likelihood or extent of impact was encouraged and many disagreements were explored, however the scoring process which drove the Threat Hazard Analysis was a an independent process which captured the unique viewpoint of each participating stakeholder.

Based on the mathematical formula used, no Threat could be scored as a zero in terms of likelihood or impact. Therefore, the lowest Risk Score a Threat or Hazard could receive was a 3 and the highest score that could be achieved was a 48.

Threats/Hazards that scored a Risk Score above a 36 were classified as Extreme Risks, and per our planning process required inclusion in this plan, with specific mitigation projects proposed, if applicable.

Threats/Hazards which scored a Risk score between 35-26 were classified as High Risk and per our planning process required inclusion in this plan with specific mitigation projects proposed, if applicable.

Threats/Hazards which scored a Risk score between 25-16 were identified a posing a Significant Risk and were presented to the stakeholders for discussion to achieve consensus on which, if any, should be included in this plan.

Threats/Hazards which scored a Risk score of 15 or less were not included in this plan, other than a discussion of their possible impact on the jurisdictions where warranted.

What follows is a numerical ranking of each Threat/Hazard considered by the stakeholders as well as numeric Risk score.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 27 TITLERISKRISK PAGE SCORESCORE NUMERICSNUMERICS

1 Wildfire (29.7) 20 Biological Attack (13.5) 2 Winter Storm (25.8) 21 Explosives Attack (13.3) 3 Severe Storm (24.8) 22 Earthquake (8.0) (12.5) 4 Power Failure (24.1) 23 Sabotage (12.4) 5 Flood (non levee/dam) (21.9) 24 Pandemic (12.0) 6 Cyber Attack (20.9) 25 Earthquake (4.0) (11.6) 7 Comms Failure (19.8) 26 EMP (11.5) 8 Landslide (19.4) 27 Radiological Release (11.1) 9 HazMat Release (18.3) 28 Chemical Attack (10.9) 10 Levee Failure (17.1) 29 Radiological Attack (10.7) 11 Dam Failure (17.1) 30 Animal Disease (9.3) 12 Drought (16.9) 31 Tornado (8.9) 13 Active Shooter (16.8) 32 CME (8.8) 14 Other MCI Event (15.8) 33 Volcanic Eruption (8.5) 15 Urban Conflagration (15.8) 34 Avalanche (7.2) 16 Epidemic (14.4) 35 Tsunami (6.2) 17 Train Derailment (14.0) 36 Hurricane (5.5) 18 Airplane Crash (14.0) 37 Mine Accident (4.4) 19 Civil Unrest/Disturb (13.6) Extreme High Significant Minor 36+ 35-26 25-16 15≤ On a 48 point scale For a detailed discussion of each of these Threat/Hazards, please see the discussion section beginning on page 31.

THE COUNTY OF NEZ PERCE ACKNOWLEDGES WITH GRATITUDE THE ASSISTANCE AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE PROVIDED BY RESCUE & RELIEF INTERNATIONAL IN THIS THIS ASSESSMENT PROCESS, IN SPECIFIC THE GRACIOUS USE OF THEIR FORMS AND METHODOLOGY WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE COUNTY. THEIR EXPERTISE AND ASSISTANCE WAS LEVERAGED IN OTHER AREAS OF THIS PLAN AS WELL.

THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUSAN RIGG (NEZ PERCE COUNTY BUILDING DEPT) WHO PROVIDED HER TIME AND SKILLS TO DO MUCH OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODELING THIS SECTION REQUIRED. [section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 28 TITLEOVERVIEW PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES

Nez Perce County and its sub-jurisdictions face a myriad of Threat, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities; as do all jurisdictions throughout America. Our geography, topography, population size and density, as well some of our industrial locations, form a somewhat unique level of Risk for a community of our size. The purpose of this section is to walk through an overview of our stakeholder feedback to the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced in our area. These are ranked as they appear in order of Risk Score, as outlined in the preceding section.

Each Threat or Hazard has a discussion of:

 Its definition and applicability to our county, a discussion of any specific Risks or Vulnerabilities to that Threat or Hazard as presented by our stakeholders.  The context in which that Threat or Hazard is most likely to occur.  Past events and forecast of possible frequency that might be realistically expected based on past occurrences.

As a County, we embrace the All Hazards Mitigation Plan planning process. The planning process provides a clear methodology to both evaluate and publicize a stakeholder integrated perspective on the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced by our whole community. While Nez Perce County has been exceptionally fortunate to have escaped impact from large scale events within recent memory, we recognize that merely hoping that will continue is not a valid operational strategy. The simple truth is that while certain Threats and Hazards have periods of increased Risk, several of these Risks are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year and can occur without warning.

As the Ready.gov short movie The Day Before reminds us: “Today is the day before… prepare for tomorrow”.

With this in mind that we present a discussion of the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities throughout Nez Perce County, as gleaned from engagement with our stakeholders through this planning process. In sections following, we will discuss specific projects and strategies to prevent, protect, mitigate and genuinely lessen the impact of these concerns throughout the county.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 29 TITLEOVERVIEW PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

As a County, we were able to reach consensus among the Planning Team that any Threat or Hazard whose Risk Score placed it in the Extreme or High Threat category would be specifically discussed. Further, projects designed to prevent, protect and mitigate the impact of that Threat or Hazard as well as lessen Risk and Vulnerability would be included in this plan.

Consensus was further reached among the Planning Team that as only two Threats or Hazards fit within the above requirement, we would select the top 12 Threats and Hazards by Risk Score to present for project proposals to be included in this process.

As discussed in the next section, few of these came to light as a surprise, and several were within both the expectation of the stakeholders as well as in-line with plans published by the surrounding counties. In fact in comparison to both the State of Idaho Plan and the Public Health District 2 Preparedness Plan, it was noted with interest that despite different methodologies being used for each of the three plans, the end result was remarkably similar. Which in the estimation of the Steering Team, validates both our methodology, the high quality of the stakeholder feedback received, as well as the methodology and quality of the other plans covering this area.

The only deviation from our published methodology was that, at the specific request of our Law Enforcement Stakeholders and with the consensus of the Planning Team, Active Shooter and Other MCI Event are included in this plan (even though they did not score high enough to be included in the top 12). This was due to the expectation, expressed by the stakeholders, that the Risk posed by these events and the current Vulnerability to them creates an exposure that is expected to increase year over year. As a Steering Team, we feel comfortable with their inclusion even though there are less clear strategies to propose for each of those then some of the other identified Threats and Hazards.

In looking at each Threat or Hazard, following a general discussion there will be a presentation on repetitive loss as well as future expectancy. As noted in the limitations section of this Plan, there is not adequate data to truly develop an objective model for frequency or loss for any Threat or Hazard. Therefore, a subjective determination will be substituted based on stakeholder feedback and this lack of data collection addressed as a high priority mitigation project in that

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 30 TITLEOVERVIEW PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

section of that plan (see page 79). Unless noted otherwise the working set of available data spans the years 1980-2014.

During the planning process, as discussed above, stakeholders were asked to provide a context for their concerns (or lack thereof) for each Threat and Hazard with special attention to areas of increased Vulnerability as well as times of the year where concern should be heightened. In the section that follows, the plan looks at each Threat/Hazard, its typical impact, as well as any: special concerns, typical causes, historical impacts and yearly frequency.

In regard to “Average Known Damage per Year” this is an aggregate of the loss claims and damages of which the county is aware. Due to the hearty and independent nature of the residents in this part of the county, it was the belief of the Steering Committee that residents are not reporting damage and simply either fixing it themselves or working directly with their insurance company to resolve claims.

Per the Nez Perce County Coroner’s Office, there have been no fatalities due any natural Threats or Hazards within the County in the last 30 years.

In the section that follows we will provide a detailed discussion of the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced within Nez Perce County.

The chart below presents a snapshot of each Threat/Hazard at the local level:

Nez Perce County City of Lewiston City of Culdesac City of Peck Key: Low – Wildfire Extreme Low Medium High Little to no Winter Storm Medium Low Low Low chance of this Severe Storm Low Low Low Low event happening Power Failure Medium Medium Low Low within the Flood Medium Medium Medium Medium jurisdictional Cyber Attack Medium Medium Low Low boundaries in a Comms Failure High High Low Low Landslide Low Low Low Medium manner which HazMat Medium High Low Low presents clear Levee Failure Low Low Low Low risk to Life, Dam Failure Low Low Low Low Health, Safety Drought Low Low N/A N/A or Property Medium – Likelihood this event happening within the jurisdictional boundaries in a manner which presents clear risk to Life, Health, Safety or Property within the next 10 years. High – Likelihood this event happening within the jurisdictional boundaries in a manner which presents clear risk to Life, Health, Safety or Property within the next 5 years. Extreme – This event is expected to occur yearly, or in the next year happening within the jurisdictional boundaries in a manner which presents clear risk to Life, Health, Safety or Property. N/A – Not applicable or not enough information to determine threat potential for this community. [section ends] County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 31 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES

Wildfire

As a rural community in Northern Idaho with large components of both grasses and timber, wildfire is one of the primary Risks faced within the county. Numerous examples of catastrophic wildfires that have resulted from small, unintended starts (be they natural or man-made) have dominated the recent news cycles. These fire have destroyed homes, lives and valuable timber for weeks to months - leaving communities devastated and in need of long recovery cycles. As recent as 2015, this area of Idaho has seen the sky turn dark with smoke and ash fall throughout the community deep enough be shoveled. As a result, it is little surprise that Wildfire received our highest Risk Score.

At the specific request of the Idaho Department of Lands, The Nez Perce County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (hereafter: “CWPP”) is included as a part of the AHMP.

During the planning process (as noted previously), a separate team of stakeholders from eight fire protection agencies which are located in and have responsibility for wildfire response within Nez Perce county met at an IDL facilitated meeting to discuss the Wildfire Threat, WUI areas and appropriate mitigation projects. Those participants were:

Agency Representative Position Nez Perce County Office of Grant DiCianni Director Emergency Management Nez Perce County Board of Doug Zenner County Commissioner County Commissioners Nez Perce County Soil and Lynn Rasmusen Director Water Conservation District Nez Perce County Fire Josh Hall Chief Department Arrow Fire District Jim Finley Chief City of Lewiston Fire Department Travis Myklebust Chief Big Canyon Fire Protection Jim O’Connell Deputy Chief District Wheatland Fire Protection Bill Hobbs Chief District City of Culdesac Fire Department Gary Gilliam Chief City of Culdesac Fire Department Brian Bromar Deputy Chief Nelson Timber Management Doug Nelson Lead Forrester Clearwater Paper Fire Brad Hukriede Chief Department Nez Perce Tribe Tim Droegmiller Fire Management Officer Nez Perce Tribe Jeff Handel Fire Management Officer Idaho Office of Emergency Rob Feeley Area Field Officer Management County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 32 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Idaho Department of Lands Jeremiah Miller Craig Mountain Fire Warden Idaho Department of Lands Jay Silva Area Manager Asotin County Mark Janowski Emergency Manager

During that meeting, it was discussed that Nez Perce County has identified several Wildland Urban Interface areas (Hereafter: “WUI”) located throughout the county and that WUI areas are known areas of increased Risk. One of the comments brought forth was that because of the current definition of WUI (which was 4 structures per square mile) and the high prevalence of out buildings, cabins and agricultural structures, the majority of the county was one big WUI on paper. Consensus was reached, with unanimous agreement from all the stakeholders, to redefine “structures” to “Addressed Residences”. The subsequent maps produced with that new metric presented a much clearer perspective as to where the actual WUI areas are, and in turn where the actual Risks and Vulnerabilities exist. We acknowledge with gratitude the Nez Perce County’s GIS Team for their excellent help and participation in this project, with special thanks to Bill Reynolds and Jason Taylor. As a result of that shift in metrics, the County WUI map now appears as:

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 33 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 34 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

As identified earlier, this section of the Plan also serves to satisfy the CWPP requirements. The Fire Protection Agencies which are located within the County are as follows:

City of Lewiston Fire Department Arrow Junction Fire Protection District Nez Perce County Fire Department Big Canyon Fire Protection District Clearwater Paper Fire Department Lapwai Fire Department Culdesc Fire Department Wheatland Fire Protection District

While there are other departments which provide response services to the County on either a mutual or auto-aid basis, they are not located within the County proper. It is anticipated that future revisions of this plan will be able to expand on each department’s capabilities in regard to coverage and protection.

Below is the map showing current structural coverage areas:

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 35 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 36 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

In addition, the County notes with gratitude the excellent job done over the years by the Idaho Department of Lands Craig Mountain and Ponderosa Fire Protection Districts, and Nez Perce Tribe Wildland Fire; which have the overarching jurisdiction for wildfire response throughout the County.

Assessing the frequency of this Threat is both easy and complex. As per IDL, there are and have been multiple recorded wildfires in the county each and every year since record keeping began. Therefore, the frequency of a wildfire in the county truly is high in any given year. However, most of those fires do not threaten or damage structures and no lives have been lost. It is, however, too easy to merely say “there will be multiple wildfires per year that don’t do any real harm” which creates a bit of a challenge for modeling this Threat. For example, one need only to look to the neighboring Clearwater and Idaho counties (Clearwater Complex Fire 2015) to see the severe impact that this Threat poses.

From 1973-2017 Nez Perce County has experienced 516 wildfires with total losses as follows: 0 lives, 2 structures, 45,000 dollars in property and 274762.75 acres burned. Those fires and their locations are reflected in the following map:

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 37 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 38 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

In looking at areas of the County where the Risk is highest, our stakeholders pointed to several characteristics that increase Vulnerability such as: density of fuels, lack of defensible space around residences, lack of community education, lack of accessibility by road and limited water. Projects to mitigate several of those concerns are found later in this plan.

Areas of concern: Snake River Corridor, Waha/Redbird, Peck, Rubens, Central Grade (Eaton’s Trailer Court), Hwy 12, Lewiston Hill, Tom Beall Rd, Lewiston ACI When: July - September Impacts/Issues: Lack of accessibility to many at Risk areas Causes: Man Made, Lightening, Power Lines, Agriculture equipment, vehicles Known Vulnerabilities: Lack of adequate fire protection coverage, inadequate water supplies, lack of education, Capabilities vs public perception, Impacts on resident health (air quality), high wind Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: $1,022

Winter Storm

Located in Idaho’s “Banana Belt” the County as a whole (and in particular the City of Lewiston) enjoys a milder climate then much of Idaho. Most winter weather events last less than a day and have minimal to no impact on Life/Health/Safety, Property and the ability of the County to continue to deliver essential services. However, there have been several times over the preceding years where 1-3 inches of snow has rapidly descended upon the County and snow removal systems have struggled to keep up, leaving transportation corridors closed and posing a Threat to community members.

Of particular concern for the stakeholders who participated in the assessment process was the tendency of winds to “carry” snow into drifts which can quickly and without warning obstruct both vision and roadways. The consensus of the stakeholders was that the impact of this Threat seems to be increasing slowly but steadily and that winters are becoming worse in the area and causing a more significant impact. There was a general feeling expressed that this was an County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 39 TITLEDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION PAG OFOF THREATS,THREATS, HAZARDS,HAZARDS, RISKSRISKS && VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES cont…cont…

issue that the County needed to begin to track more closely to determine it’s true impact on the area.

Areas of concern: Countywide, Lewiston Orchards (terrain effects) When: November - February Impacts/Issues: Low Freq/High Risk, <1 day impact Causes: Natural Known Vulnerabilities: Equipment Age, Manpower, Impacts to School and Commerce. Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

Severe Storm

While the weather throughout the County lends itself to outdoor pursuits, throughout the year, there are times of severe storm which stakeholders felt posed a specific concern to both the county and its sub-jurisdictions.

The National Weather Service in its report Nez Perce County Storm Data 2007- 2017 identified 49 separate Severe Storm Events that effected all or part of the County with 16 of these being Hail events. During several of these events debris obstructed transportation corridors and caused limited minor power outages.

While wind and hail, which are features of severe storms in the County are of concern, both due to their ability to cause debris and damage agriculture, (which is a major portion of the local economy); the stakeholders addressed specific concern that the aspect of these events that caused the most need for vigilance was in the tendency for lightning events to cause wildfire starts and for high wind to damage electrical infrastructure. This last concern particularity near the City of Culdesac. In addition the tendency of these storms to bring large amounts of precipitation during the melting of the snow pack results in a phenomena called “rain on snow” which increases the rate of snow pack melt. This phenomenon can produce higher volumes of water flow then existing culverts, bridges and levees can contain. As a result, several of the mitigation projects proposed in this plan address increase to the ability to re-direct stormwater. The County is most vulnerable to these types of events when there is an above average County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 40 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

snowpack, and a delayed warming period during spring followed by a sudden thaw.

Areas of concern: Countywide, Peck, Lewiston, Culdesac, Winchester Dam When: October - May Impacts/Issues: Road Wash Outs, Sheet Flooding, Inflow into wastewater treatment plants, mud flows, down power lines/trees, lightening, high winds Causes: Natural Known Vulnerabilities: Precipitating factor to other events to which the county is vulnerable. Aged/Inadequate infrastructure creates add’l vulnerabilities. Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: $13,651

Power Failure

Throughout America, it is taken for granted that when you switch on a light, it will turn on. That ability however is predicated by power provided by generation and transmissions systems which are themselves susceptible to Threats and Hazards. While there is a concern that a loss of power due to aged infrastructure or manmade error (similar to some of the blackouts which have hit portions of the nation over the last decade), the largest concern tracked by stakeholders was that a loss of power would be secondary to some other impact (i.e. Severe Storm). An additional concern that likely brought this Hazard higher on the list was the expectation that rather than be a standalone event, a Power Failure would also be the primary cause of other more concerning impacts (i.e. a prolonged power failure during a high water event would have deleterious impact on the ability to lift Stormwater over the levees into the river).

In defining this event the stakeholders looked at a Power Failure in excess of 8 hours effecting at least 10,000 people.

Residents and Businesses within Nez Perce County are served by one of two Electrical Utilities, either: Avista Power or Clearwater Power. While both were invited to the AHMP neither company chose to participate. However, in subsequent meetings with representatives from both there is limited concern over the impact of this Threat both based on their internal modeling as well as County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 41 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

historical impact. Neither of these companies generate the power they provide to the County, rather they provide local distribution lines. Therefore, an event which effects the primary power generation for the County (in this case Idaho Power’s Hell’s Canyon Dam) might have a larger impact. However, as this has not occurred as defined above, it is hard to accurately forecast an expected impact.

Areas of concern: City of Lewiston, City of Culdesac When: 24/7/365 with an emphasis on October – May (Severe Storm) Impacts/Issues: Flooding, Communications Failure, Business Impacts, Impact to Medical Device Dependent populations. Causes: High Wind, Secondary to another event Known Vulnerabilities: Aged infrastructure, lack of generators. Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

Flood (non levee/dam related)

Flood is both a micro and macro Hazard. Several areas of the county have issues with undersized culverts which leads to limited areas of flooding. Located in a basin surrounded by waterways coursing down from watersheds, there are also geological features which make this area more prone to water accumulation. As water accumulates and follows the path of least resistance it tends to pool in undesirable areas, on roadways, in low lying developed areas. Several mitigation projects have been proposed in the following section of this Plan which would address several areas of repeat concern.

On a macro level, positioned between two major rivers at the bottom of the Clearwater Watershed, water accumulation is a concern during severe storms as well as rain-on-snow during months of high snowpack accumulation. Although several trouble areas throughout the county have been addressed through past mitigation projects, the potential for a large scale flooding event is high.

Nez Perce County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (hereafter: “NFIP”) and fulfills all criteria required through adoption and County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 42 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

enforcement of the Nez Perce County Floodplain Development Standards Ordinance #98 (Appendix A), which provides floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP standards and requirements.

With the exception of the City of Lewiston who issues their own floodplain permits through the City of Lewiston Planning and Zoning Department per Lewiston Ordinance 96d 1115.74, planning and permitting for floodplain development throughout the county has been delegated to the Nez Perce County Planning and Zoning Department.

From 1964 – 2017 data shows 63 flood events with 1979 and 2015 each accounting for one third of that total. County records do not show any structures lost during these events and there was no damage data available for the Steering Team to assess during the drafting of this report. The following two maps show locations of these flood events as well as our “watch areas” and the data derived from a 1983 Flood Insurance Rate Map (hereafter: “FIRM”). One of the needs released by this AHMP process was the need to update these maps based on more accurate modeling. This has been proposed through several projects in the next section of this Plan.

Changes in Development As a part of the AHMP review process, a query was sent to Nez Perce County Planning and Building to enquire about any new developments permitted or constructed in hazard prone areas since the completion of the previous plan. None were identified.

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 43 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 44 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 45 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Areas of concern: All Stream/River Corridors, Hubbard Gulch, Wauncher Gulch, Lindsay Creek Drainage (Lewiston Orchards) When: December - April Impacts/Issues: Property Damage/Loss, Erosion, Debris/Sediment, Well Contamination, Ingress/Egress Issues Causes: Rain fall, Rain on Snow, Snow Melt, Damaged/Aged/Inadequate Infrastructure. Known Vulnerabilities: Terrain, Flood Prone Areas, Areas w/o proper storm water infiltration Frequency: Every 3-5 years Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

Cyber Attack

Cybercrimes, “Ransomware” operations, and Denial of Service attacks are at an all-time high. Worse, no longer are merely “high profile” locations targets, but every computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or device connected to the Internet is a possible target. In 2016 (the latest year with data available at the time of drafting this Plan), ransomware attacks increased 300% and preliminary numbers suggest the following year shattered that record. Worse, data is showing that bad actors are not merely content to aim their sights at large targets, often instead targeting secondary and tertiary systems with their attacks. Nez Perce County has twice been the victim of cybercrime in recent years and has faced a myriad of attempts in recent memory.

Nez Perce County does have any key infrastructure where safety is controlled by remotely accessible hardware. It does maintain stores of records and other information which would compromise its mission, service and the safety of its staff should that information be accessed and/or released. Further, it is envisioned that a bad actor could affect the county or it’s sub-jurisdictions in this way from a location hundreds or thousands of miles distant, beyond even the reach of American Law Enforcement. The effect of such cyber compromise could severely erode citizen confidence in the County, severely hampering its delivery of services.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 46 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

The current data suggests a move from big intuitional hacks, to attacks on smaller, less defended systems this is an area where the likelihood of this type of event combined with its impact makes it an area of high concern for Threat and Hazard Planning. By its very nature there is no “season” for cyber events, they are 24/7 and can happen 365 days a year.

Areas of concern: Any City/County connected network, computer or device When: 24/7/365 Impacts/Issues: Lack of ability to deliver/control critical services, Loss of Data, Loss of Comms Causes: Human Caused Known Vulnerabilities: Phishing, DOS, Ransomware, Lack of stakeholder training/education Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

Communications Failure

Communication is the lifeblood of effective emergency response. From the citizen’s ability to reach a Public Safety Answering Point (hereafter: “PSAP”), to the PSAP’s ability connect to the correct dispatch point and then to the responders, one failure in the chain causes a cascading effect. Communications throughout Nez Perce County are both robust and fragile at the same time. Whereas the county operate a wide network of repeaters and has adequate land-mobile radio capabilities with redundant backups, all of the County’s landline communications go through one central hub which is located in area which faces Risk from several Threats and Hazards. It was further assessed by our stakeholders that Communications Failure is often secondary to another occurrence (i.e. Flood, Fire, etc). In those instances, the impact from a communications failure would be greatly magnified, as it would come at a time where dependable communication between the public and first responders, would be most needed. As an illustration of this Threat’s impact, stakeholders pointed to neighboring Clearwater County which has lost its 911 capabilities due to this very concern 6 times in the last 3 years.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 47 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

As a Steering Team we believe this issue, which was not part of the original list of Threats or Hazards presented for consideration (but was instead added at the consensus of the stakeholders as described above) is one worthy of additional attention during the revision stages of this plan to truly understand likely impacts and best practice mitigation strategies.

Areas of concern: Land Mobile Radio, Internet, Phone, 911, NG9-1-1 When: 24/7/365 Impacts/Issues: 1st Responders, Command & Control, Delivery of Services Causes: Secondary to other events or damage/sabotage Known Vulnerabilities: Location of Critical Infrastructure, limited redundancy/backups Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

Landslide

Areas of steep altitude change are always susceptible to movement of soil and adding moving water into the mix only exacerbates the concern. Here in Nez Perce County, we have both, in abundance. Long-term residents are not unaccustomed to seeing detour signs on Highway 12 indicating that the road is closed because of a landslide. Such is a feature of life here in the County.

As a result, we have invested in both landslide and soil studies which can be found in Appendix E and F (respectively) which outline most of the concern for the area. In addition, in the following map shows a portion of the county based on Geological Terrain Units (hereafter: “GTU”) breakdowns.

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 48 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 49 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Further, the County has been able to document the locations which were effected by Landslides as shown in the following map. It is worth noting however (as was mentioned by several stakeholders during the meetings) that land moves in quantity enough to justify it being called a “landslide” often throughout the County. Rarely however are those movements in a populated area or near a structure to be noticed. Therefore we recognize the high frequency low impact nature of the Threat, however are also aware that land movement in certain places throughout the County could be possibly catastrophic.

Areas of concern: Hwy 12, Hwy 3, Stream Corridors (esp. Clearwater River), Central Ridge Rd, Peck, George Grade/Triumph Ln When: February - May Impacts/Issues: Failed Septic Systems, Loss of Life/Property, Road Closures, Infrastructure Causes: Water event combined with specific soil types and slope, Landowner improvements, Re-routed storm water Known Vulnerabilities: Soil Types, Limited Response Infrastructure Frequency: 3-5 years Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 50 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 51 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont… Hazardous Materials Release

Nez Perce County enjoys two Highways as well as numerous high quantity users of Industrial Chemicals. Through Lewiston Fire Dept, the County is host to the Hazardous Materials Regional Response Team which is a huge asset for the area. That team responds to several Hazardous materials incidents per year, most commonly spilled petroleum products following incidents on the roadway. However, as reported by the County Local Emergency Planning Commission, we are aware of several large quantity Hazardous Materials users who could easily, through no intention of their own, create a significant event for the county which would trigger and Evacuation or a Shelter-in-Place event.

The question that is hard to assess is “what will be the impact”? As discussed above, a hundred gallons of diesel spilled on a roadway (which is the County’s most common occurrence, happens multiple times a year) has a relatively limited impact. A railcar carrying Chlorine (one of the most common industrial chemicals and one that is used in large quantity by our local industrial users) would force an initial evacuation of 3.6 miles downwind, potentially requiring the movement of 5,000+ people. However, no such event has occurred in recent memory.

This is a Threat whose impact bears additional scrutiny and discussion within the County. The steering team would like to mention that many of these high volume Hazardous material users are also some of the largest employers within the County and that inspections have shown a high level of compliance with best practices by these users. We recognize that the use of these chemicals is core to their continued ability to operate.

Areas of concern: Transportation Routes, Industrial Sites, Agricultural Sites When: 24/7/365 Impacts/Issues: Water Quality, Life/Health/Safety, Access Issues Causes: Accidental or Intentional Release Known Vulnerabilities: Age/Integrity of Rail Infrastructure, Lack of Visibility, Location of certain storage sites Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 52 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont… Levee Failure There are three primary, known and maintained levees throughout Nez Perce County. There is the extensive miles long network maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers in the City of Lewiston, one in Peck and one in Culdesac. These levees are inspected and repaired as needed to ensure their functionality by the appropriate stakeholders. In the event of damage to or breech of these levees, impact would vary by: location, severity of the breech and the water level at the time of the breech. While the levees in Culdesac and Peck would do damage, a breech of the Lewiston Levees would cause catastrophic damage to a huge swath of Lewiston. It would also force mass evacuation and damage hundreds of structures, including those which provide essential City and County Services. The County, in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers (who was a principal stakeholder during this planning process) are holding a series of exercises and training in 2018 and 2019 focused on these concerns.

Even well made, well maintained levees can be breeched or damaged by vegetation growth, tunneling from small animals, strong water movement, sabotage or other acts (i.e. car crash). Oftentimes portions of levees have been found to be removed by rock collectors or fisherman. One of the concerns of the failure of an established, tracked levee above is that it would be a precipitating issue to a secondary event (like flooding, communications failure, etc).

Of greater concern is the myriad of unpermitted, unmaintained levees that exist throughout the county, largely the result of well-intentioned landowner improvements. Some of these levees have stood for decades with little to no maintenance and no records of their construction. As per the project below, a careful and full inventory of these would help the County assess the further Risk posed by levees throughout the county.

Areas of concern: Lewiston, Peck, Culdesac, Hwy 3, Cottonwood Creek, and unpermitted When: December - May Impacts/Issues: Cascading Failure, Flooding, Comms, Life &Property Causes: Water, Unpermitted Work, Vegetation, Animals, Damage Known Vulnerabilities: Uneducated landowners, lack of visibility Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 53 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Dam Failure When this Hazard was discussed by the stakeholders, there was disagreement on the likelihood and impact of the event based on stakeholder perception of what a “dam” was. All understood that the purpose of a dam is to hold back water. For several stakeholders a dam was an agricultural feature that was used to secure stockponds, irrigation ditches, etc that had a high failure rate but a low impact rate. For others, a Dam was Dworshak or Hell’s Canyon, namely significant, engineered and maintained dams which hold back cubic acres of water and whose failure is unlikely in the extreme but if it happened would be utterly catastrophic. The third group of stakeholders was more focused on intermediate structures, like the ones at Soldier’s Meadows or Winchester, which are modestly constructed and maintained structures that have threatened to fail in the past and whose failure would be significant in terms of property damage and injury but unlikely to be catastrophic. As a result the assessment figures for this Threat were across the spectrum. All stakeholders however agreed that Dam Failure was a primary Threat that needed to be addressed this this plan.

As presented in the mitigation projects below, primarily the recognized need was for tracking of these unpermitted dams, stakeholder and community education in regard to mitigation and response, as well as robust evacuation plans in the event of a catastrophic failure. Those will be addressed through the Office of Emergency Management in the upcoming release of the Training and Exercise Plan as well as the Emergency Operations Plan, both scheduled for a 2018 Release.

Areas of concern: Dworshack, Winchester, Soldier's Meadow, Lower Granite, Hells Canyon, Farm Ponds, Mud Springs When: February - May Impacts/Issues: Roads, Life/Health/Safety, Property, Interruption of Services Causes: Overtopping, High Water Event, Failure from unseen damage. Known Vulnerabilities: Lack of Monitoring, Lack of Maintenance Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 54 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Drought Seeing this Threat ranked as highly as it was by the stakeholders was a bit of surprise to the Planning Team. This Threat, more than any other showed a wide disparity in the numerical responses. Almost all of the stakeholders ranked this Threat at one of the two extremes of the Risk Score; there were very few midrange values. In querying this during the context meeting, the feedback from stakeholders was that as an area whose economy is heavily dependent on agriculture the traditional metric of “Life/Health/Safety, Damage to Property and Impact to Services” does not capture the damage that would be inflicted on the County in the event of a severe or prolonged drought. In essence, they were saying that the long term effects of a drought would deliver impact to those areas, just not at first. As a result, many stakeholders scored this as an area of concern.

In an area like Nez Perce County which does rely on both rainwater and groundwater for its irrigation, as well as for livestock; lack of precipitation is an issue. Many shallow private residential wells would also suffer in a prolonged lack of rainwater. Further, since a large amount of the municipal drinking water comes from the Clearwater River, lack of precipitation would have a deleterious effect on the County’s ability to deliver this most valuable commodity.

Since this issue has not been previously explored in any of the planning sessions historically, the Steering Team felt that a more targeted consideration of this concern was warranted during a future update meeting.

Areas of concern: Countywide When: June - October Impacts/Issues: Increases Fire Risk, Commerce/Ag, Drinking Water, Fishing/Tourism Causes: Insufficient Water / Precipitation Known Vulnerabilities: Single Source Water Reliance, Lack of back up sources Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 55 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Active Shooter Of all of the Threats and Hazards reviewed by the stakeholders, this one, due likely to its recent prevalence at the time this report was being drafted, as well as its unpredictability, created active conversation among the participants. So much so that despite that its Threat Numeric Ranking placing it outside of the top 12, it was, by the specific request of a cross section of stakeholders, requested to be included in the plan.

Active Shooter events are man-caused and dynamic. They often occur without warning and with devastating consequences. The reverberations of an Active Shooter event, particularly at a school, would have strong, long lasting impact on the residents and first responders throughout the County. The systems, educational model and current training do not adequately address this Threat. The age of the educational structures means they have not received many security upgrades in-line with the most recent guidance. There are currently plans to schedule several School Safety/Campus Security trainings over the next 18 months to further the conversation on this issue.

However it is not just schools that need to worry about this Threat. Active Shooter events can occur at outdoor venues, government buildings, workplaces, churches, economic hubs and pretty much anywhere else people gather. The nature and political climate of north central Idaho does somewhat mitigate this risk, however it is an area where the Steering Team agreed more conversation was needed. There has never been Active Shooter event at a large gathering in the history of the County.

Areas of concern: Schools, Governmental Buildings, Churches Large Gatherings When: 365 (usually daytime hours, higher Risk during school year) Impacts/Issues: Life/Health/Safety Causes: Human Caused Known Vulnerabilities: Lack of training, Lack of visibility, Rise in popularity Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 56 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Other MCI Event An MCI (Mass Casualty Incident) Event is a time where the number of injured exceed the capacity to quickly provide care. For some jurisdictions that number in in the hundreds, for Nez Perce County that number is in the single digits. There are a nearly unlimited amount of plausible scenarios which could easily generate the number of injured to create an MCI event within the County.

Nez Perce County, with the specific emphasis on the City of Lewiston is the primary provider of EMS services for a very large geographical area covering sections of 3 states. In addition, it boasts the only full time career fire department within a multi-county radius. This is mentioned to support the statement that in the event of even a small scale MCI event, the response infrastructure to support a scalable response would not be as readily accessible to the County as it might be in other places throughout America.

As the stakeholders began to discuss this concern and heard from members of the fire department, there was increased visibility for this concern from a number of previously unaware stakeholders. As a Steering Team we hold that up as proof of this process accomplishing its stated objectives to create increased visibility for the Threats and Hazards facing the County. This topic needs further discussion over the coming plan revisions.

Areas of concern: Large Gatherings, Transportation Corridors When: 24/7/365 Impacts/Issues: Life/Health/Safety Causes: Varied Known Vulnerabilities: Limited Response Infrastructure, Limited Surge Capability Frequency: Unknown Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 57 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Steering Committee Note: As stated above, the scope of this Plan was specifically to identify and discuss the top ranked Threats and Hazards faced by the County and its sub-jurisdictions, as identified by the 2018 AHMP Stakeholder Engagement sessions. As to the other Hazards ranked, tracked and discussed by the stakeholders (as identified on the Threat & Hazard Analysis Worksheet found in Appendix D); the consensus among the stakeholders, ratified by the Steering Team, was that these Risks are secondary to the County’s primary Risks and beyond the scope of this initial draft of the plan. It is the hope of the Office of Emergency Management to reflect the impact of these secondary and tertiary Threats and Hazards in the County’s upcoming Threat Hazard Risk Identification Analysis (THIRA) which should be released in 2020.

UPDATE: Vector Borne Disease. The steering committee felt that the addition of this Threat should be added to the AHMP to reflect the impact of the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) pandemic. Continued on next page -

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 58 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Vector Borne Disease

Although this threat was not in the top 15 during the original analysis, stakeholders felt a need to comment on the COVID19 pandemic. The stakeholders felt a section addressing the risks and threats identified during the last 13 months.

Vector-borne diseases are human illnesses caused by parasites, viruses and bacteria that are transmitted by vectors. Vectors are living organisms that can transmit infectious pathogens between humans, or from animals to humans. Distribution of vector-borne diseases is determined by a complex set of demographic, environmental and social factors and environmental challenges can impact on pathogen transmission, making transmission season longer or more intense or causing diseases to emerge in countries where they were previously unknown.

These vector-borne diseases can be understood as “outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics”.

A disease outbreak is the occurrence of disease cases in excess of normal expectancy. The number of cases varies according to the disease-causing agent, and the size and type of previous and existing exposure to the agent. Outbreak is often used for a more limited geographic area. Cluster refers to an aggregation of cases grouped in place and time that are suspected to be greater than the number expected, even though the expected number may not be known

Epidemic refers to an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area. Epidemics occur when an agent and susceptible hosts are present in adequate numbers, and the agent can be effectively conveyed from a source to the susceptible hosts.

Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 59 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

In medicine, “novel” usually refers to a virus or bacterial strain that was not previously identified. A novel disease, caused by the novel strain, has not previously been seen or identified in humans. With novel viruses, we usually don’t have a lot of information about transmission from person to person, so we need to exercise extreme caution when we’re around other people, taking care to maintain distance and wash our hands frequently.

Possible implications due to epidemic or pandemic. • Healthcare systems will be quickly overwhelmed • Energy supply uncertainty • Water supply and Wastewater treatment uncertain • Transportation system uncertain • Shortages of food, medications and other supplies • Stress on the economic system • Limited access to government services, voting, law, fire, revenue, licensing • Education, child care, religious, psychological, and domestic consequences

Mitigation Strategies • Support local first responders in efforts to provide services during an event. • Provide evidence-based guidance for controlling vectors and protecting people against infection • Support Public Health and health care providers so that they can effectively manage cases and outbreaks • Provide training, tools, and support to maintain continuity of operations following standards and best practices • Develop communication plan with the public and between agencies and stakeholders • Support development and evaluation of strategies and approaches to minimize vector-borne diseases from spreading including changes to behavior through education and public awareness

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 60 TITLEDISCUSSION PAG OF THREATS, HAZARDS, RISKS & VULNERABILITIES cont…

Vector Borne Disease (cont)

Areas of concern: Countrywide, Regional, National, International, 'novel' diseases When: Year-round Impacts/Issues: Low Freq/High Risk, <30-day impact Causes: Natural Known Vulnerabilities: PPE, education, COOP Frequency: Yearly Known Avg. Damage per year: Unknown

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 61 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS OVERVIEW

Whereas the preceding sections of this plan look at the Threats, Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities faced by Nez Perce County; the subsequent sections of this plan look at specific strategies to prevent, protect and mitigate against those through targets projects.

It is worth noting here that Threats and Hazards are a known fact of life. For example, in Nez Perce County we have wildfires start weekly, if not daily, during the peak of fire season. However, most residents are completely unaware because those fires do no interact with mankind. They are in the isolated backcounty and are quickly controlled or burn out. Those are not the kind of events the County seeks to invest to curtail the impact of. Our goal is to look at where these events poise a Risk to the Life, Health and Safety of our residents, and/or pose a Risk to property and/or would affect the county in a way where its ability to deliver essential services is altered.

Prevention1 simply means that there are ways to prevent certain Risks from materializing. For example, if the Risk is that a house in a known flood zone will flood again, as it has the past two years, the way to prevent that harm from occurring might be to relocate the house.

Protection means that we recognize that certain events are unavoidable. Staying with the flooding example, what could be done to protect a structure at Risk of flooding? Dams, Dikes, Levees and elevated structures are examples of protection for structures at Risk from flood.

Mitigation means that we are, through targeted solutions, lessening the impact of an event when it occurs. For example, there may be a compelling need to locate a structure or a road in a flood plain (as described above) and we understand there will be impact to that structure from flood waters. However, there are strategies, such as increased culvert size and regular preventive maintenance of the storm water system in that area which will allow the impact of the flood to be lessened in that area. Some projects offer both a protection and mitigation benefit.

It was with that intent that stakeholders identified as part of the Mitigation Planning Team (as outline on page) were invited to participate in an intensive

1The Steering Team recognizes that in pure “Emergency Management” speak, Protection only applies to Terrorism, however given the diverse nature of the stakeholders invited to this process, the word is used in a more generic context due to the fact that inside of other disciplines terms such as “Fire Prevention” have a broader and more impactful meaning. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 62 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS OVERVIEW cont…

multi-hour collaboration process to present and discuss strategies to prevent, protect and mitigate against the Risks and vulnerabilities facing the county.

In that meeting, each stakeholder was asked to identify a specific area of concern, offer a specific project or strategy for implementation, as well as outline an expected cost and timeline for completion.

For the most part, the agency that suggested the project also took on the responsibility as the Responsible Party to see that the project moved forward. In many events true costs or timelines were unknown so an estimate was used. In the event that no accurate cost or timeline could be determined without intensive work outside the timeline this planning process allowed, “To Be Determined” (hereafter: “TBD”) was used to denote that this variable needed to be updated at a future maintenance meeting.

One of the more interesting things to come out this meeting was that as the stakeholders heard the plans of other agencies and jurisdictions it spurred their own thinking. Almost a quarter of the projects or strategies contained in the next section of the plan were submitted to the Steering Committee after the final planning meeting. Several agencies indicated they would be proposing even more projects at the 2019 update. We encourage the stakeholders to continue to think creatively and synergistically about how they can both complement the efforts of other stakeholders, as well as adapt these strategies to additional areas in their areas of service.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 63 TITLEPROJECTPROJEC PAGT PRIORITIZATION OVERVIEW

Each project that is contained in this Plan is “prioritized”, not on the merits of the project or it final expected impact, but rather on mathematical model that takes into account each projects:  Availability of Funding  Feasibility in Implementation  Benefit to Protection of Life/Health/Safety  Property Protection Benefit  Impact to the Protection of Delivery of Essential Services.

Each category received a score of 1 – 3 with as follows:

1 – Little to no expected funding/feasibility/benefit 2 – Moderate expected Funding/Feasibility/Benefit 3- Strong expected Funding/Feasibility/Benefit (this score was also assigned to any category in which the project was already underway or had some level of funding already secured)

Scores were then added to achieve a rank from 5 (Little to no impact, feasibility and funding) to 15 (Strong impact, feasibility and funding). Projects that scored from 15-12 were rated as HIGH priority projects, Projects scoring 11-7 were rated as MEDIUM priority projects and projects scoring below 7 were ranked as LOW priority.

Steering Team Note: There were cases where a project had strong funding, benefit and feasibility however its beginning required another project to be completed before it or the project had an estimated start date that was a decade or longer into the future. In any case where one or both of those factors were true, that project’s score was dived by 2 (to place it lower down on the prioritization schedule).

This process is admittedly subjective and does not represent a judgement or technical evaluation of each project’s merit. Rather, it is an artificial construct necessary to provide some level of prioritization within the plan and comply with CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii-iv). Stakeholder agencies and jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to pursue completion of their assigned projects without regard to projects that are more highly ranked, unless that lower ranked project requires another project to be completed beforehand.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 64 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED Wildfire WF-1 Project Name: Capt. John Fuels Reduction Location: Located on the SE side of the Captain John Creek drainage, Description: Creation of a shaded fuel break 200’ on either side of a two track road that follows the canyon rim. Roughly from Kruze Meadows to approximately 1 mile south of Benton Meadows. Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: Idaho Dept of Lands Completion Date: 2025 Priority: High

WF-2 Project Name: Vineyard Fuel Reduction Location: NW of Vineyard Dr and Buena Vista Dr (Lewiston) Description: Reducing fuel near adjacent homes improving defensible space for homes located in the North and Western Corridors Cost: TBD Responsible Party: City of Lewiston Completion Date: TBD Priority: Medium

WF-3 Project Name: WUI Mitigation Through Education Location: Countywide Description: Educate property owners and builders in best practices and fire resistance Cost: $1,000 Responsible Party: NPC Planning & Building Dept Completion Date: Continuous Priority: High

WF-4 Project Name: FEMA Risk Map – Nez Perce County Location: NPC WUI Corridors Description: Identify & map locations with a high Risk of wildfire. Provide information to property owners about Risk levels and BMP’s to allow informed decisions prior to and after construction/development. Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: NPC Planning & Building Dept Completion Date: 2025 Priority: High County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 65 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

WF-5 Project Name: Big Canyon Fire District Capabilities Improvement Project Location: Big Canyon Fire District (Peck, ID) Description: Equip and Deploy 4 Type IV wildland trucks and 2 Water Tenders resulting in a 200% increase in wildland fire fighting capability. Cost: $15,000 Responsible Party: Big Canyon Fire Protection District Completion Date: 2019 Priority: High

WF-6 Project Name: County Pre-Attack Lines #1 Complete Location: Craig Mountain Area Description: 150 Acre shaded fuel break in the Mission Creek and Webb Creek areas. Cost: $200,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 2019 Priority: High

WF-7 Project Name: County Pre-Attack Lines #2 Location: McCormack Ridge Rd Description: 300 acre shaded Fuel Breaks adjacent to McCormack Ridge Rd, continuing projects surrounding Forest, Waha, and Soldier Meadows areas. Cost: $200,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 2020 Priority: Medium

WF-8 Project Name: Lenore Townsite Fire Mitigation Location: Lenore, ID Description: Establish Control lines between concentrations of grass brush and timber and area residences in areas containing high volatility fuels during in WUI identified areas. Cost: $200,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 2021 Priority: Low

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 66 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

WF-9 Project Name: Peck Townsite Fire Mitigation #1 Location: Peck, ID Description: Establish fuel breaks along main roads and timbered areas in identified WUI corridors for structure protection. Cost: $200,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 12/2022 Priority: Medium

WF-10 Project Name: Peck Townsite Fire Mitigation #2 Location: Peck, ID Description: Establish pre-attack fuel breaks and focus on controlling the regrowth of brush along roadside fuel breaks where brush was treated in the initial Peck Townsite Fire Mitigation #1 project. Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 2021 Priority: Low

WF-11 Project Name: Post Fire Recovery/Mitigation Tools Location: Nez Perce County Description: Establish seed recommendations and obtain materials and equipment to install post-fire debris flow reduction measures on slopes Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Low

WF-12 Project Name: Fire Assessment Location: county wide Description: Train local professionals on post-fire analysis Cost: $75,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/USFS Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 67 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

WF-13 Initial Scoping completed Project Name: North Clearwater Wildfire Reduction Location: Homes near Hatwai and North Clearwater Area Description: Establish vegetative boundary around homes near Hatwai and North Clearwater area Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Medium

WF-14 Completed Phase I: 3/21/2021 Project Name: Sweetwater Hazard Fuels Reduction Location: Waha, Soldiers Meadows area Description: Forest health measures including thinning, crown fuel reductions Cost: $225,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 11/30/2019 Priority: Medium

WF-15 Project Name: Fisher Fire Hazard Tree Removal Location: Near Ruebens Description: Hazard tree removal along 4 miles of private roads burned during the 2015 Fisher Fire- number 6 priority Cost: $15,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Medium

WF-16 Project Name: Sweetwater Hazard Fuels Reduction - Phase 2 Location: Waha, Soldiers Meadow, Sweetwater Creek Description: Forest Health measures including thinning, crown fuel reductions Cost: $240,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 11/30/2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 68 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

WF-17 Project Name: Peck Townsite Fire Mitigation #3 Location: Peck, ID Description: Establish fuel breaks along main roads and timbered areas in identified WUI corridors for structure protection. Cost: $240,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 12/2024 Priority: Medium

WF-18 Project Name: Waha - Redbird Fuel Breaks and Defensible Space #1 Location: Waha and Redbird areas Description: Establish fuel breaks along main roads and timbered areas in identified WUI corridors for structure protection. Remove brush and improve evacuation corridors. Cost: $240,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 12/30/2023 Priority: Medium

WF-19 Project Name: Waha - Redbird Fuel Breaks and Defensible Space #2 Location: Waha and Redbird areas Description: Establish fuel breaks along main roads and timbered areas in identified WUI corridors for structure protection. Remove brush and improve evacuation corridors. Cost: $240,000 Responsible Party: NPC Board of County Commissioners Completion Date: 10/30/2025 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020

Priority: Low 69 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

Winter Storm WS-1 Project Name: Winter Storm Conditions Advisory Project Location: Throughout Nez Perce County Description: Identify the conditions for Road Closures, School Closures and Conditions Advisories for each jurisdiction and school district and determine the best method of communication to each effected area. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

WS-2 Project Name: City of Lewiston Snow Removal Enhancements Location: Throughout Nez Perce County Description: Identify the needed upgrades to the City of Lewiston’s Public Works Fleet to provide increased snow removal during a Winter Storm Event Cost: TBD Responsible Party: City of Lewiston Public Works Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

Severe Storm SS-1 Project Name: Peck Stormwater Drainage Project Location: Peck, ID Description: There are either no culverts or incorrect sizes of culverts throughout the community. When there are significant rain events, flooding occurs on the streets and enters citizen yards and basements. The excess water also creates significant ruts and very large pot holes on the streets. Cost: $100,000 Responsible Party: City of Peck Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020

Priority: Low 70 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Flood (Non Levee/Dam) Please See “Ready Set Go” project description which also addresses this Threat/Hazard. FLD-1 Project Name: Flood Fight Course Location: Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management Description: Conduct a County-wide educational course (G 361) on flood fight operations, planning and recovery. Cost: $350 Responsible Party: Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management Completion Date: 2022 Priority: High

FLD-2 Project Name: FEMA Risk Map – Nez Perce County Location: Stream/River Corridors through NPC Description: NPC needs to be re-mapped with current lidar elevation data and current stream flow data, including a detailed flood study in areas of significant population density such as incorporated cities and unincorporated communities. Cost: $75,000 Responsible Party: NPC Planning & Building Dept Completion Date: 2025 Priority: High

FLD-3 Project Name: Culdesac Wastewater Facility Streambank Erosion Protection Program Location: City of Culdesac Description: April 2018 the City had a flood event where Lapwai Creek changed course taking out over 30 feet of land with trees and vegetation next to Culdesac's wastewater Facility Plant, causing Threat to the wastewater discharge point and Threating the integrity of the system. Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: City of Culdesac Completion Date: 2023 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 71 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-4 Project Name: South Tom Beall Reconnect - Phase I Location: South tom Beall Road Description: Relocate channel to its original location, install 2 culverts. Construction phase Cost: $90,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 10/30/2024 Priority: Medium

FLD-5 50% Complete Project Name: Flat Iron Crossings Location: Two culverts on Flat Iron Road Description: Replacement of existing culverts with larger structures. Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2022 for north structure; south structure will need additional funding. Priority: Medium

FLD-6 Complete 2019 Project Name: George Grade Culvert - Phase I Location: George Grade Creek intersects Cottonwood Creek Road Description: Hydrology analysis and initial scoping report. Cost: $88,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 7/30/2018 Priority: Medium

FLD-7 Project Name: George Grade Culvert – Phase II Location: George Grade Creek intersects Cottonwood Creek Road Description: Design and permitting. Cost: $30,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Low

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 72 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-8 Project Name: George Grade Culvert - Phase III Location: George Grade Creek intersects Cottonwood Creek Road Description: Replace culvert with bridge. Cost: $200,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 11/30/2025 Priority: Low

FLD-9 Part of Clearwater RISK map Project Name: Potlatch River Corridor Floodplain Analysis Location: From confluence of Clearwater River and Potlatch River upstream to 3 miles North of Kendrick, Idaho Description: Phased project - I hydrology analysis, establish flood zones, identify flood depths, quantify flow volumes; II - Identify protection measures; III - Install protection measures. Cost: $500,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low

FLD-10 Complete 12/2020 Project Name: Lower Mission Creek/Rock Creek Floodplain Improvement Plan Location: Confluence of Mission/Rock Creeks to 3 miles East on Rock Creek Description: Floodplain management plan, hydrology analysis, initial scoping of problems and alternative development. Cost: $30,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2018 Priority: Medium

FLD-11 Complete 12/2020 Project Name: Lower Mission Creek/Rock Creek Floodplain Improvements - Phase I Location: Confluence of Mission/Rock Creeks to 3 miles East on Rock Creek Description: Installation of rock barbs/rootwads along county road. Cost: $40,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/31/20189 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 73 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-12 Complete 12/2020 Project Name: Lower Mission Creek/Rock Creek Floodplain Improvements - Phase II Location: Confluence of Mission/Rock Creeks to 3 miles East on Rock Creek Description: installation of rock weirs, development of floodplain benches. Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low

FLD-13 Complete 2020 Project Name: Webb Creek Floodplain Analysis Location: Webb Creek Description: Hydrology analysis of Webb Creek to identify flood prone areas and flooding depths at various flow events. Cost: $8,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 8/30/2018 Priority: Medium

FLD-14 Project Name: Webb Creek Floodplain 13-1685 Location: Webb Creek Description: Install flood reduction measures by relocating road along 2,300 LF of Webb Creek. Cost: $12,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/2022 Priority: Low

FLD-15 Project Name: Hatwai Creek Floodplain Restoration Location: 3 miles of Hatwai Creek Description: Establish floodplain benches, install rock weirs, stabilize channel. Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2027 Priority: Low

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 74 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-16 75% Complete - (Catholic Creek) Project Name: Flow Gage Location: Cottonwood Creek, Mission Creek, Catholic Creek, Hatwai Creek Description: Install flow gages in 4 streams to allow monitoring of high flow conditions. Cost: $80,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2023 Priority: High

FLD-17 Project Name: Peck Early Warning System Location: Peck Description: Connect stream gage installed in 2017 to early warning system. Install climate stations in uplands. Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: Undetermined Completion Date: 7/15/2025 Priority: Medium

FLD-18 Project Name: Peck Water Intake Relocation Location: 0.5 miles upstream of City of Peck Description: Relocate water intake from stream to well. Cost: $1,000,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/City of Peck Completion Date: 12/30/2023 Priority: Low

FLD-19 Project Name: Big Canyon Road Flood Protection Location: 0.5 miles upstream of City of Peck Description: Replace bridge with larger structure to reduce flooding damages, install overflow measures in roadway, and install floodplain sills. Cost: $500,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2031 Priority: Low

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 75 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-20 Project Name: Big Canyon 12 culverts Location: Various locations in Lewis/Nez Perce County Description: Replace, enhance, and stabilize inlet/outlets of 12 culverts located in uplands. Locations were identified after 2015 fire and identified as number 3 priority in assessment document. Cost: $250,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/LC/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2035 Priority: Low

FLD-21 Project Name: Big Canyon Road Erosion Control Measures Location: Near Ruebens Description: Road erosion control measures on 1,800 LF of private roads. Identified on page 5 of Fisher Fire Burn Area Report under prioritized actions. Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2035 Priority: Medium

FLD-22 Project Name: Big Canyon Flood / Debris Flow Reduction Measures Location: Big Canyon Creek Description: Flood and debris flow reduction measures on 6 stream miles. Identified as priority 9 in 2015 fire assessment (Fisher Fire Burn Area Report). Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2023 Priority: Medium

FLD-23 Project Name: Tom Beall Road Shoulders – Phase I Location: 1.5 miles East of Tom Beall Road/Hwy 95 intersection Description: Installation of rock riprap and gabions - design/permitting phase. Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Road and Bridge Completion Date: 11/20/20228 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 76 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-24 Project Name: Tom Beall Road Shoulders – Phase II Location: 1.5 miles East of Tom Beall Road/Hwy 95 intersection Description: Installation of rock riprap and gabions - construction phase. Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: NPC R&B/NPSWCD Priority: Medium

FLD-25 Completed 2019 Project Name: Bear Creek - Phase I Location: Peck, ID Description: Bridge re-design needed due to debris flows from peak water events which cause over-topping of the roadway and makes the roadway impassable and erodes the abutments. Cost: $75,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 10/30/2019 Priority: Medium

FLD-26 Completed 2019 Project Name: Bear Creek - Phase II Location: Peck, ID Description: Bridge replacement per above. Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2023 Priority: Low

FLD-27 Project Name: Bear Creek - Phase III Location: Bear Creek Watershed Description: Debris and water retention structures in uplands. Cost: $300,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 77 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… FLD-28 Completed 2020 Project Name: Tom Beall Bridge 15-1802 Phase I Location: White Road Description: Bridge design re-design needed due water flow headcutting the roadway and causing damage. Proposed project is to replace culverts with a bridge. Cost: $55,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 10/30/2019 Priority: Medium

FLD-29 Project Name: Tom Beall Bridge Replacement - Phase II Location: White Road Description: Culvert replacement with bridge. Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2024 Priority: Low

FLD-30 Project Name: Localized Urban Flooding Location: Multiple locations Lewiston (9th and Prospect, Idaho/G St and 16th St, 14th St and 12th Ave, and other areas) Description: During heavy rainfall and snow melt, minor flooding occurs in a number of areas throughout Lewiston where stormwater drain and gutters are not adequate. This minor flooding generally creates short-term (2 hours or less) standing water, erosion, minor property damage and traffic complications. Occasionally several homes will flood. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: City of Lewiston Completion Date: TBD Priority: Medium

FLD-31 Project Name: Nez Perce County Flood Frequency Table Location: Nez Perce County Description: Develop a flood frequency table for the streams in Nez Perce County to help interpret the flood frequency of gaged streams during high flow events. Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 11/30/2022 Priority: Low County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 78 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

FLD-32 Project Name: Nez Perce County Flood Damaged Sites 2019 Location: Nez Perce County Description: Install mitigation measures on 2019 flood damaged sites to reduce the potential impacts for future events. Includes protection of powerlines, roadways and homes. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC IT Dept Completion Date: 11/30/2022 Priority: Medium

FLD-33 Project Name: Nez Perce County Damage Survey Form Location: Nez Perce County Description: Develop a flood, fire, and landslide damage survey form to be used for NPSWCD and NPC. Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 11/30/2022 Priority: High

FLD-34 Project Name: Gun Club and Lindsay Creek Culvert Location: Nez Perce County Description: Need to monitor the amount of water and sediment coming from new development on Gun Club Rd and impacts to possible undersized culverts. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPSWCD / NPC Completion Date: TBD Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020

Priority: Low 79 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Cyber CYB-1 Project Name: Hardware & Software Update Location: NPC Buildings and Network Locations Description: Provide and Maintain Software and Hardware updates for all computers and networking locations as outlined in National Institutes of Standards in Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC IT Dept Completion Date: 2019 Priority: Medium

CYB-2 Project Name: Employee and User Education Location: Throughout Nez Perce County Description: Provide education, classes and best practice advice for users of the Nez Perce County IT infrastructure to ensure education about cyber vulnerability, attacks and best practice defense. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: Nez Perce County / City of Lewiston - IT Departments Completion Date: Continuous / on-going Priority: High

CYB-3 Project Name: Community Education Location: Throughout Nez Perce County Description: Provide education, classes and best practice advice for community members through Nez Perce County to ensure education about cyber Vulnerability, attacks and best practice defense. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020

Priority: Low 80 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Communications Failure COMF-1 Project Name: Emergency Communications Re-Route Location: Snake River and Clearwater River Floodplains Description: Build alternate LMR, Telephony, and network paths to remove them from the inundation zone that would result from a failure of either Hell’s Canyon or Dworshak Dams. Currently all of the telephone and network pathways that service the county travel along areas that are forecasted to be destroyed in the event of a failure of either dam. Cost: $15,000,000 Responsible Party: NPC-COL Emergency Communications Joint Powers Board Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

COMF-2 Project Name: Emergency Communications Center Location: City of Lewiston Description: Build a robust, hardened communications capable of housing and providing Emergency Communications infrastructure for the County of Nez Perce, the City of Lewiston and other stakeholders. The current facility is in the area of impact from our largest HazMat Threat, as well as in the inundation zone for two major dams. Cost: $10,000,000 Responsible Party: NPC-COL Emergency Communications Joint Powers Board Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

COMF-3 Project Name: Public Safety Communications Infrastructure Location: City of Lewiston Description: Lewiston Public Safety communications repeater equipment and tower relocation. Current, location is not easily accessible and facilities do not have IP network, physically not secure, and limited backup and power. Cost: $500,000 Responsible Party: Lewiston Police Dept, Fire Dept, Public Works, IT Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 81 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Landslide LDSL-1 Project Name: FEMA Risk Map – Nez Perce County Location: Canyon & River Corridors through NPC Description: Identify & map locations with a high Risk of landslide occurrence. Provide information to property owners about Risk levels and BMP’s to allow informed decisions prior to construction/development. Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: NPC Planning & Building Dept Completion Date: 2020 Priority: Medium

LDSL-2 Project Name: Big Canyon Reforestation Location: Near Ruebens Description: 2,500 acres of reforestation. Listed as priority 7 in the Fisher Fire Burn Area report. Cost: $250,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Medium

LDSL-3 Project Name: Big Canyon Landslide Evaluation with USGS/Idaho Geological Survey Location: Big Canyon Creek Description: Landslide evaluation with USGS/Idaho Geological Survey. Identified as priority 11 in 2015 fire assessment (Fisher Fire Burn Area Report). Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: USGS Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low

LDSL-4 Project Name: Nez Perce County Landslide Assessment Location: Nez Perce County Description: Identify landslide prone landscapes, integrate site condition monitoring on critical landscapes (those above roads/homes). Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 82 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

LDSL-5 Project Name: Howard Gulch Landslide Location: 1 mile West of Howard Gulch and the Potlatch River confluence Description: remove privately installed levee, install 4 grade control structures. Cost: $150,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NRCS Completion Date: 12/30/2025 Priority: Low

LDSL-6 Project Name: Big Canyon Creek Landslide Reduction Location: Big Canyon Creek Description: develop landslide Hazard assessment on landslides identified in 2015; prioritize for mitigation or prevention measures Cost: $40,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD Completion Date: 12/30/2030 Priority: Low

LDSL-7 Project Name: Landslide Education Tools Location: Nez Perce County Description: Educational Materials for developers, real estate professionals to reduce building and disturbance on landslides Cost: $75,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 12/30/2022 Priority: Medium Hazardous Material Release Please See “Ready Set Go” project description which also addresses this Threat/ Hazard. Project Name: HERT (Hospital Emergency Response Team) Training Location: Lewiston, ID Description: Provide FEMA/CDP Hospital Emergency Response Team training and certification to the front-line personnel at St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in Lewiston. Cost: $3,750 Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2022 Priority: High County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 83 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Levee Failure Please See “Ready Set Go” project description which also addresses this Threat/ Hazard. Project Name: Landowner Levee Database Location: Through Nez Perce County Description: Document and Map the existence and condition of all private and non- Army Corps of Engineers maintained Levees on both private and land throughout the county. (Includes Dikes) Cost: $2,500 Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2019 Priority: Medium Dam Failure Please See “Ready Set Go” project description which also addresses this Threat/ Hazard. Project Name: Landowner Dam Database Location: Through Nez Perce County Description: Document and Map the existence and condition of all private and non- Army Corps of Engineers maintained Dams on both private and land throughout the county. Cost: $2,500 Responsible Party: Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management Completion Date: 2020 Priority: Medium Drought

Project Name: Drought Mitigation Study Project Location: Throughout Nez Perce County Description: A joint project between NPC OEM and the NPSWCD to assess which areas are most at Risk for drought and to solicit expert feedback as to what measures will most address those issues. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2022 Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 84 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont… Active Shooter Project Name: Active Shooter Rapid Response Team Provisioning Location: City of Lewiston Description: A joint project between Lewiston Fire, Lewiston Police, and Nez Perce County Sherriff’s Office and the Office of Emergency Management to equip and exercise a new response model to active shooter events. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2018 Priority: High Other MCI Event

MCI-1 Project Name: Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (TECC) Courses Location: City of Lewiston Description: Lewiston Fire will be providing training and certification for all Lewiston Fire Department Members on TECC which focuses on the use of triage and life Threat stabilization in the event of a Mass Casualty Incident. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: Lewiston Fire Department Completion Date: 2018 Priority: High

MCI-2 Project Name: Triage and MCI Response Courses Location: Throughout Description: The Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management will be hosting one day Stop the Bleed courses as well as mock MCI drills for response agencies throughout Nez Perce County Cost: $2,500 Responsible Party: NPC OEM Completion Date: 2021 Priority: High

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 85 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

MCI-3 Project Name: First Responder Preparedness and Training Location: Nez Perce County, Port of Lewiston, Public Facilities Description: Purchase of tactical, medical and response equipment for public safety agencies. Exercises and training to include all facets of response to the Threat/Hazard and minimizing risk. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM, Law Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services Completion Date: Continuous Priority: Medium

Vector Borne Disease

Project Name: First Responder and Government Preparedness Location: Nez Perce County, City of Lewiston Sub-jurisdictions Description: Purchase and maintain levels of PPE for First Resonders, corrections and employees. Plan, train and exercises with Public Health and other health-care providers. Develop continuity of operations plans, continuity of government and business / economic / personal preparedness. Cost: TBD Responsible Party: NPC OEM, Nez Perce County, City of Lewiston Completion Date: Continuous Priority: Medium

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020

Priority: Low 86 TITLEPREVENTION,PREVENTION, PAG PROTECTI PROTECTIONON & & MITIGATION MITIGATION PROJ PROJECTSECTS PROPOSED PROPOSED cont… cont…

Multi-Category Projects (Our stakeholders have identified a few projects which span several Threat/Hazard Categories, they are listed below along with a description of which Threats/Hazards they address) Ready, Set Go. Several of the project categories above referred to the “Ready, Set, Go” project which has been identified as one of the most important projects for this county at this time. Simply put, the current notification and evacuation plans are confusing, fractured and not widely known. It was decided among the primary first response stakeholders that Nez Perce County and the City of Lewiston would transition to using the International Association of Fire Chief’s (Hereafter: “IAFC”) Ready, Set, Go program for both its notification and activation levels in the event of a widespread emergency. Students of the Ready, Set, Go program will remember that in its current iteration, the program is wildfire specific. However on April 5, 2018 the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management received permission from the IAFC to follow the lead of such jurisdictions as Phoenix, AZ in rolling this program out in an All Hazards Environment. Ready, Set, Go will be become both the notification and activation levels that all of the Nez Perce County and City of Lewiston agencies will use to communicate with the public during times of emergency in any and all Hazards. Through the Office of Emergency Management we are planning a large roll out in late 2018 coordinated through both internal and external media partners. As such, it has been determined that due to its applicability across almost all Threat/Hazards and because of itssignificant cross-sectional buy-in, this project would be the primary project in all applicable Threats/Hazards above. Please find its project description below:

OTH-1 Project Name: Ready, Set, Go All Hazards Roll Out Location: Through Nez Perce County Description: Implement the Ready Set Go model as the primary method for notifying the public of an impending or active emergency. Create education materials, host classes, integrate with AlertSense and tie in with all first response agencies.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 87 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

Cost: $27,500 Responsible Party: Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management Completion Date: 2019 Threat/Hazard Categories: Wildfire, Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure & Hazardous Materials Release Priority: High All Hazard Mapping & Damage Tracking Project As noted throughout this plan, one of the limiting factors was the lack of available digitized records on occurrence and impact of historical events for each of the Threats and Hazards. As a result, we see the need to go through and document past occurrences, as well as determine a county-wide system for documenting and preserving data from future occurrences. Two complimentary projects have been identified for this need as outlined below:

AHMP-1 Complete 1/2020 Project Name: All Hazard Mapping Project Location: Nez Perce County Description: Create a geodatabase with historic flood, fire, landslide, climate events to be used for future planning and mitigation work. Cost: $12,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 2018 Threat/Hazard Categories: Wildfire, Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure, Severe Storm, Winter Storm & Hazardous Materials Release Priority: High

AHMP-2 Project Name: All Hazard Impact Assessment Project Location: Nez Perce County Description: Create a geodatabase with historic flood, fire, landslide and weather impacts that shows damages, structures, injuries and fatalities as well as creating a template for the future collection of impact data. Cost: $12,000 Responsible Party: NPC GIS/NPC OEM Completion Date: 2023 Threat/Hazard Categories: Wildfire, Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure, Severe Storm, Winter Storm & Hazardous Materials Release Priority: High

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 88 TITLEPREVENTION, PAG PROTECTION & MITIGATION PROJECTS PROPOSED cont…

AHMP-3 Project Name: Evacuation and Reception Planning Location: City of Lewiston, Nez Perce County, sub-jurisdictions Description: Evacuation plan for Lewiston and Nez Perce County and a reception plan for evacuees coming to our community / region. Cost: $50,000 Responsible Party: NPC OEM, City of Lewiston, Nez Perce County Completion Date: 2023 Priority: Medium

All Hazard Mapping & Damage Tracking Project Several of the projects identified within the county are dependent on data derived from LIDAR flights, as described above. These projects will allow for processing of that data into useable formats and to make that data available to a wider constituency of stakeholders. Projects are divided into High Risk areas in Project #1 and the rest of the county in Project #2.

MHP-1 70% Complete Project Name: LIDAR Processing #1 Location: All drainages within Nez Perce County Description: Process LIDAR for high Risk streams in the Lower Clearwater, Snake, Salmon in order to use data for hydrology, landslide, fire slope analysis. Cost: $10,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 2020 Threat/Hazard Categories: Wildfire, Flood & Landslide Priority: High

MHP-2 Project Name: LIDAR Processing #2 Location: Nez Perce County Description: Process LIDAR for the areas of Nez Perce County not covered in Project #1. Cost: $20,000 Responsible Party: NPSWCD/NPC Completion Date: 2021 Threat/Hazard Categories: Wildfire, Flood, Levee Failure, Dam Failure & Landslide Priority: Medium

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 89 TITLEADOPTION PAG & PROMULGATION

It is the hope and expectation of the Steering Committee, as well as the stakeholders that participated in this process that both the County of Nez Perce, the Cities of Lewiston, Culdesac and Peck would formally adopt this plan and its recommendations contained herein and that such plan shall inform and be used in other plans, such as Capital Improvement, Recovery, and similar plans as encouraged by 44CFR201.6(c)(4)(ii).

Once the plan is approved pending adoption by FEMA Region X, the plan will be presented to the governing boards for each of the jurisdictions in the county who elected to participate in the creation of the plan.

Formal resolutions adopting the plan can be found in Appendix B of this document.

Once adopted, a copy of this plan shall be provided to each of the stakeholders who participated in this plan. Copies will be made available of public review through the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 90 TITLEPLAN PAG MAINTENANCE

In order to both meet the requirements of 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)(i) and (iii), as well as to keep the plan a current useable document, the Steering Committee, with the consensus of the stakeholders has adopted the following update plan:

The plan shall be reviewed the 2nd Tuesday of each calendar year. This meeting shall include invites to all previous and current stakeholder agencies for the purpose of reviewing the plan, its continued validity, holding each projects’ responsible party accountable, noting benchmarks/progress and adding or subtracting projects to keep the plan current and relevant on the following schedule:

Tuesday, January 14, 2020 from 0800-1200 in the Brammer Building, 1st Floor Conference Room.

Tuesday, January 12, 2021 from 0800-1200 in the Brammer Building, 1st Floor Conference Room.

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 from 0800-1200 in the Brammer Building, 1st Floor Conference Room.

Tuesday, January 10, 2023 from 0800-1200 in the Brammer Building, 1st Floor Conference Room.

Following each Stakeholder Engagement Meeting, there shall be a Public Outreach Meeting for the purpose of soliciting citizen comments and feedback. Notice of such shall be given through the county bulletin board and local media.

Following each yearly meeting that Steering Committee shall publish the consensus changes within 90 days.

Following the 2022 meetings, the Steering Committee shall meet and determine if the plan in its current form is still relevant and robust enough to continue to be updated or if it needs to be completely revised.

The Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management shall be the coordinating entity for plan maintenance.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 91 TITLERESOURCES PAG USED IN THE CREATION OF THIS PLAN

The Steering Team relied in part or whole on the following documents, studies and references:

Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA, March 2013 Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards, FEMA, January 2013 Mitigation Planning Workshop Student Manual (Region X), FEMA, September 2017 Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide, FEMA, October 1, 2011 Nez Perce County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004, 2009 & 2014 versions). Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management, Various. Geologic Hazards in a Portion of Nez Perce County; Howard, Terry; University of Idaho, 2003 Nez Perce County Landslide Map, Howard, T.; University of Idaho, 2003 Nez Perce County Geotechnical Hazard Study, Nez Perce County GIS Dept, 2016 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201 2nd Edition, August 2013, FEMA Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters, and U.S. Emergency Management, Emergency Management Institute, FEMA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Guide, FEMA Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Awareness Participant Guide, FEMA December 2016 Critical Asset Risk Management Participant Guide, FEMA, October 2015 Advanced Critical Infrastructure Protection Participant Guide, FEMA, October 2015 Jurisdictional Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Participant Guide, FEMA, October 2015 State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan, IOEM, 2013 Ada County Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, Ada County Emergency Management 2014 Ada County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Ada County Emergency Management, 2017 Idaho County, Idaho Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 Revision, Northwest Management Inc, 2016 Teton County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan, Teton County Emergency Management – Civil Defense, 2016 Clearwater County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Clearwater County Emergency Management, 2017 FEMA Toolkit – Glossary of Terms: (https://training.fema.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/glossary.htm) Guide to Emergency Management and Related Terms, Definitions, Concepts, Acronyms, Organizations, Programs, Guidance, Executive Orders & Legislation: A Tutorial on Emergency Management, Broadly Defined, Past and Present Blanchard, Wayne 2008. 2015 Wildfire Inventory and Assessment Report Vol. 1, North Central Idaho Wildfire Restoration Group, 2016 Nez Perce County Storm Data Report 2007 – 2017; Brown, Andrew National Weather Service, 2018

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 92 TITLECONCLUSION PAG

It is with extreme gratitude that the Steering Team recognizes the participation of all of the stakeholders throughout the County; several of which gave sacrificially of their time and efforts to complete this plan. Also, the Steering Team extends its sincere thanks to the Nez Perce County Board of Commissioners and the governing bodies of the Cities of Lewiston, Culdesac and Peck for their participation and support throughout this process. It was, without question, a whole community effort.

In summation, the process of Risk and Vulnerability reduction does not happen inside of a closed plan and it is not complete simply because ink hits paper. Resiliency and Mitigation require participation and while Nez Perce County is truly one of the safer places to live throughout this great county, it is incumbent upon each of us to do our part to secure a safer, less vulnerable future. That is said with the clear knowledge that not every impact can be prevented or mitigated. With that in mind, we continue to commend the local elected officials to support the efforts of their disaster response and prevention agencies and for those agencies to work synergistically with each other to maximize the benefits available to citizens throughout Nez Perce County.

Respectfully submitted this 30th Day of June in the Year 2018:

______Grant DiCianni Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management

______William Reynolds Nez Perce County GIS

______Alison Tompkins Nez Perce County Planning Department

[section ends] -PLAN ENDS-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 93 TITLE Appendix PAG B: Additional Maps

Reserved for Future Use

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 94 TITLEAppendix PAG A: Adoption Declarations

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 95 TITLEAppendix PAG A: Adoption Declarations

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 96 TITLEAppendix PAG A: Adoption Declarations

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 97 TITLECONCLUSION PAG

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 98 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 99 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 100 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 101 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 102 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 103 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 104 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 105 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 106 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 107 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 108 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 109 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 110 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 111 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 112 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 113 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 114 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 115 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 116 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 117 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 118 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 119 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 120 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 121 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 122 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 123 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG B: Flood Ordinance #98 cont…

[section ends] County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 124 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options

The Steering Team is aware that the various responsible parties for each project may need to look for funds beyond those that their agency or jurisdiction routinely accesses. As a result we have included this guide to funding options. This list is by no means exhaustive nor illustrative of all of the funding options. We encourage any responsible party, as identified in this plan, to contact the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management to discuss these or other funding options at: [email protected] .

Please be aware the most funding options require some level of match from the recipient and have specific timeframes in which applications can be received.

The Nez Perce County Steering Committee would like to gratefully acknowledge the work done by Teton County Emergency Management in compiling these resources and we extend our particular thanks to Greg Adams for his gracious permission to use this portion in our plan, for the benefit of our stakeholders:

Many local governments are in a quandary to implement measures to secure and protect property with today’s economic constraints. Many programs, including FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, are the victims of budget cuts. DHS’ 2006 Emergency Management Performance Grants – Program Guidance and Application Kit states that “emergency managers at all levels should leverage all available funding and resources from multiple sources wherever possible…(and)…should not restrict their activities to only Federal funding to achieve the goals outlined within their strategies. Rather, special attention should be given to leveraging relevant funding sources and resources that support”… mitigation activities.1

In addition to federal programs, the State homeland security and preparedness programs and resources may be available to meet the objectives outlined in the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section outlines potential funding sources.

1 The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, & Emergency Management Hearing on The National Preparedness System: What are we preparing for?” ; April 14, 2005. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 125 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides grants to State, tribal, and local governments to implement long-term Hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist State, tribal, territorial and local governments in implementing cost-effective Hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. The PDM program was allocated $30,000,000 in FY 2015. Project priorities are: Mitigation planning and project sub-applications

Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program The Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program provides funding to assist States and communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term Risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to the FY 2015 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program Fact Sheet, $150,000,000 is available to States, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments. FEMA will prioritize eligible planning and project sub-applications as follows: Mitigation planning sub-applications consistent with 44 CFR Part 201 up to a maximum of $100,000 federal share per applicant. Projects that mitigate at least 50 percent of structures that meet definition part (b)(ii) of a Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property: At least 2 separate NFIP claim payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the market value of the insured structure. Project sub-applications that mitigate at least 50 percent of structures that meet the definition of a Repetitive Loss (RL) property: Have incurred flood- related damage on 2 occasions, in which the cost of the repair, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the market value of the structure at the time of each such flood event. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 126 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

Projects that mitigate at least 50 percent of structures meet definition part (b)(i) of a SRL property: 4 or more separate NFIP claims payments have been made with the amount of each claim exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount of claims payments exceeding $20,000. Projects that will reduce the Risk profile in communities through mitigation of the largest number of contiguous NFIP-insured properties.

Mitigation Technical Assistance Program There are three major mitigation technical assistance programs that provide technical support to state/local communities, FEMA Regional and Headquarters Mitigation staff in support of mitigation initiatives. These programs include the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program, the National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program, and the Wind and Water Technical Assistance Program. They provide the technical support that is necessary to mitigate against potential loss of lives and minimize the amount of damage as a result of a natural disaster.

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program The goal of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program is to assist local fire departments with staffing and deployment capabilities in order to respond to emergencies, and assure that communities have adequate protection from fire and fire-related Hazards. For FY 2015, an estimated $340,000,000 is set aside to assist fire departments in achieving the SAFER goal. There are two program priorities: to hire firefighters, and to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters.

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program The Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant Program had $34,000,000 available in FY 2014 in support of two activities: fire prevention and safety (including general education/awareness, code enforcement/awareness, fire & arson investigation, and national/state/regional programs and studies) and research and development (including clinical studies, technology and product development, database system development, dissemination and implementation research, and preliminary studies). Homeland Security Grant Program Comprised of three interconnected grant programs, the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) seeks to support the building, sustainment, and County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 127 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

delivery of core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal, which is “A secure a resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the Threats and Hazards that post the greatest Risk.” The HSGP grant is tyoiucally administered through the County Office of Emergency Management. Due to Nez Perce County’s lack of an international border, the 3rd program in this series (Operation Stonegarden) is not being discussed.

State Homeland Security Program In FY 2015, $402,000,000 was allocated to the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). Although only states and territories can apply for SHSP funds, the program is directed at supporting States, Tribes, and local governments to address high-priority preparedness gaps identified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) with relation to terrorism. Award methodology is based on the minimum amounts as legislatively mandated (0.35% of total funds for states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico and 0.08% of total funds for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands), DHS’ Risk methodology, and the anticipated effectiveness of proposed projects. Cooperating Technical Partners Program The Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program seeks to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through fostering relationships among all levels of government to reduce flood losses and promote community resiliency. The total funding for Region 4 in FY 2015 was $12,973,272. The main focus in FY 2015 for the CTP program is to support the mission and objectives of FEMA’s Risk MAP (Mapping, Assessment, and Planning) program.

Emergency Management Performance Grant In FY 2015, $350,100,000 was allocated to the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). This program is designed to assist state, local, territorial, and tribal governments to prepare for all Hazards. The State Administrative Agency (SAA) or Emergency Management Agency (EMA) can apply for the funding. All 50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico will receive at least 0.75% of total funding. American Samoa, Guam Northern Mariana Island and the U.S. Virgin Island will each receive at least 0.25% of total funding. The balance will be distributed on a population-share basis. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 128 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

Homeland Security National Training Program Continuing Training Grants Program The Homeland Security National Training Program Continuing Training Grants Program (HSNTP/CTG) had $11,521,000 for FY 2015 to be used for training focused on cybersecurity, Hazardous materials, countering violent extremism, and rural training. Eligible entities (including state, local, tribal, and territorial entities) must have existing programs or demonstrate expertise relevant to the focus areas.

Immunization Research, Demonstration, Public Information and Education Grants The Immunization Research, Demonstration, Public Information and Education Grant program assists States, political subdivisions of States, and other public and private nonprofit entities to conduct research, demonstration projects, and provide public information on vaccine-preventable diseases and conditions. Project funds may be used for the costs associated with organizing and conducting these projects, and in certain circumstances, for purchasing vaccine. Requests for direct assistance (i.e., "in lieu of cash") for personnel, vaccines, and other forms of direct assistance will be considered. Funds may not be used to supplant existing immunization program activities.

Immunization Grants Immunization Grants assist States and communities in establishing and maintaining preventive health service programs to immunize individuals against vaccine-preventable diseases (including measles, rubella, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, mumps, haemophilus influenza type b, influenza, and pneumococcal pneumonia). Grant funds may be used for costs associated with planning, organizing, and conducting immunization programs directed toward vaccine-preventable diseases and for the purchase of vaccine; and for the implementation of other program elements, such as assessment of the problem; surveillance and outbreak control; information and education; adequate notification of the Risks and benefits of immunization; compliance with compulsory school immunization laws; vaccine storage, supply, and delivery; citizen participation; and use of volunteers. Vaccine will be available "in lieu of cash" if requested by the applicants. Requests for personnel and other items "in lieu of cash" will also be County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 129 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

considered. Vaccine purchased with grant funds may be provided to private practitioners who agree not to charge for vaccine. Grant funds may be used to supplement (not substitute for) existing immunization services and operations provided by a State or locality.

River, Trail, and Conservation Assistance Program The goal of this program is to work with community groups and local and State governments to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways; with the goal of helping communities achieve on-the-ground conservation successes for their projects.

Wetland Program Development Grants The Wetland Program Development Grants are designed to assist state, tribal, and local government agencies in building their wetland management programs. Grant funds can be used to develop new or refine existing wetland protection, management or restoration programs. The types of projects funded through this program are very diverse. In the past, states, tribes and local governments have pursued a wide range of activities from very broad policy or regulatory projects, to development of specific technical approaches/methods for wetland health or restoration.

Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants – 319 Program Through its 319 program, EPA provides formula grants to the states and tribes to implement nonpoint source projects and programs in accordance with section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source pollution reduction projects can be used to protect source water areas and the general quality of water resources in a watershed. Examples of previously funded projects include installation of best management practices (BMPs) for animal waste; design and implementation of BMP systems for stream, lake, and estuary watersheds; basinwide landowner education programs; and lake projects previously funded under the CWA section 314 Clean Lakes Program. For FY 2014, tribal base grants were from $30,000 to $50,000, and competitive grant awards could be up to $100,000.

Watershed Organizations EPA recognizes that strong and committed watershed organizations and local governments are necessary partners to achieve the goals of the Clean County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 130 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

Water Act and improve our nation's water quality. To support these local efforts, the EPA is working to: build the capacity of watershed organizations to develop and implement sustainable funding plans to obtain achieve environmental results; and, build the capacity of private and public funders to channel their resources towards good watershed initiatives.

Emergency Watershed Protection Program The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program helps protect lives and property Threatened by natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and wildfires. There are two parts of the program: EWP - Recovery and EWP - Floodplain Easement (FPE). EWP – Recovery: The EWP Program is a recovery effort program aimed at relieving imminent Hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. Public and private landowners are eligible for assistance, but must be represented by a project sponsor that must be a legal subdivision of the State, such as a city, county, township or conservation district, and Native American Tribes or Tribal governments. NRCS may pay up to 75 percent of the construction cost of emergency measures. The remaining 25 percent must come from local sources and can be in the form of cash or in-kind services. EWP – Floodplain Easement: Privately-owned lands or lands owned by local and state governments may be eligible for participation in EWP-FPE. To be eligible, lands must meet one of the following criteria:

Lands that have been damaged by flooding at least once within the previous calendar year or have been subject to flood damage at least twice within the previous 10 years.

Other lands within the floodplain are eligible, provided the lands would contribute to the restoration of the flood storage and flow, provide for control of erosion, or that would improve the practical management of the floodplain easement Lands that would be inundated or adversely impacted as a result of a dam breach.

Community Development Block Grant Program

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 131 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG C: Selected Funding Options cont…

The Department of Housing and Urban Development sponsors this program, intended to develop viable communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. Recipients, which include principal cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), other metropolitan cities with populations of at least 50,000, and qualified urban counties with populations of at least 200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities), may initiate activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and provision of improved community facilities and services. Specific activities may include public services, acquisition of real property, relocation and demolition, rehabilitation of structures, and provision of public facilities and improvements, such as new or improved water and sewer facilities.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 132 TITLEAPPENDIXAPPENDIX PAG D:D: QuestionnaireQuestionnaire cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 133 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG D: Questionnaire cont…

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 134 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG D: Questionnaire cont…

(section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 135 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS IN A PORTION OF NEZ PERCE COUNTY

Terry R. Howard P.E., P.G., PhD August 2003

INTRODUCTION

This document is intended to discuss and describe the geological/geotechnical Hazards discovered during the three-year study authorized by the Nez Perce County Commissioners in 1999. The objective of this study was to prepare geotechnical Hazard maps that could be used by Nez Perce County Planning and Building Services to help guide county development, including private site development and County roads.

Study Area The area of study is shown on Figure 1, USGS Quadrangle Maps Included in the Study Area. Each quadrangle covers approximately 50 square miles so the total area mapped was approximately 410 square miles. The quadrangles mapped were selected based on the County’s knowledge and prediction of future development. It was reasoned that much of the future development in the county would follow the breaks of the Clearwater and Snake Rivers and south of Lewiston. Therefore the following USGS Quadrangle maps were selected for Hazard interpretation and completed in the (year):

Lewiston Orchards North (2001) Lapwai (2001) Clarkston, east side, (2001) Green Knob, southern half (2002) Juliaetta (2002) Lenore (2002) Culdesac North (2002) Lewiston Orchards South (2003) Southwick, west side (2003) Asotin, northeast corner (2003) Sweetwater (2003)

Study Methods

The geoHazard maps were interpreted from three factual maps, surficial geology, slope, and soil. The Idaho Geological Survey (IGS), Moscow, Idaho, provided these three maps. Knowledge of the engineering characteristics and experience with the geologic materials aided the interpretation of geoHazards. Geologic materials with similar geotechnical engineering properties were assigned to the same Geotechnical Terrain Unit (GTU). Slope of the land surface was considered when analyzing landslide potential.

-Please See Next Page-

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 136 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study cont…

Figure 1, USGS Quadrangle Maps Included in the Study Area.

Geologic materials and slope of the land surface control the potential for landslide Hazards. Some geologic materials, such as basalt and loess, can stand on vertical slopes. Other materials stand naturally at different angles, for example sand and gravel can maintain a maximum stable slope angle of about 40 degrees. Past slope failures were mapped by the IGS and were assigned to GTU-5.

The final product of this study is a compact disk (CD) containing a geoHazard map called Geotechnical Terrain Units (GTU), a geology map and a slope map. The geoHazard map is a combination of the 11 USGS quadrangle maps in Figure 1. IGS input these data into ArcView, a geographical information system program compatible with the County’s software. Landslides

There is no doubt that landsliding is potentially the greatest Hazard to land development in the County. Worldwide earthquakes are considered the number one Hazard because they cause more damage and require more money to clean up. However, landslides cause more loss of life. Since this part of Idaho is relatively earthquake free landslides become the top Hazard with flooding a close second. Both of these Hazards were abundant in the mid-1990’s.

The landslide Hazard causes both loss of life and property damage. In the United States an average of 25 lives per year are lost to landsliding and the property damage runs into the billions of dollars. It is almost impossible to obtain an accurate accounting of monies spent on landsliding. The

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 137 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study cont…

direct cost, that is the cost of cleanup, repair and replacement alone exceeds a billion dollars in the United States.

In this area we see a lot of damage that is included in indirect cost and these costs are difficult to quantify. Each year we have loss of productivity on agricultural and forest lands because of landsliding. We also see loss of industrial, farm and forest revenue due to interruption of transportation routes. This was evident when Snake River Avenue was closed for about two years. Industries and farms south of the landslide were affected greatly because they had to go around the landslide. The direct cost for cleanup and repair is known; however we will never know the amount of money lost by the businesses denied this transportation route.

Another indirect cost is loss of real estate value. People do not want to buy property with landslide activity. And associated with this loss is the loss of tax revenues to the County due to decreased real estate values.

Causes of Slope Failure

Slopes fail when the resisting forces, the soil and rock strength, are overcome by the driving forces, the weight of the soil/rock mass. Engineers refer to this physical condition as a factor of safety equal to unity. The equation that represents this condition is: FS = Resisting forces / Driving forces, or FS = Strength / Weight

The factor of safety can change by either increasing the driving forces or decreasing the resisting forces, or both. The driving forces increase by changing the loading conditions on the slope such as:

 Add loads to the top of the slope  Remove material from the bottom of the slope  Add water (weight)

The resisting forces change by reducing the strength of the soil or rock

 Weathering  Wetting  Swelling after excavation  Weakening by progressive failure  Liquefaction

Terzaghi idealized slope failure as shown by Figure 2. Both soil and rock tend to loose strength due to weathering and the steepness of the slope on which these materials are stable decreases as weathering progresses. Therefore the factor of safety for any slope decreases naturally with geologic time. This is shown by the gentle slope of the factor of safety plot in Figure 2. Rainfall events cause a sharp decrease in the factor of safety for a short period of time, generally in the spring of the year. Human activity can cause the plot to become steeper by improper site development, sometimes to the extent of immediate failure as shown in Figure 3.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 138 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study cont…

Increased Steepness SITE DEVELOPMENT due to cut or fill

Decreased Strength due to swelling or weathering

Rainfall Failure

SF = 1.0 Factor of Safety, SF Safety, of Factor

Shear Strength Factor of Safety, SF = After Terzaghi, 1950 Shear Stress

Time Figure 2 – Changes in factor of safety with time.

In slope design the generally agreed upon acceptable factor of safety is 1.50. Figure 3 shows a site that was developed without engineering input. Uncompacted fill was placed on an existing slope and water was added by a septic system within the fill. The natural slope beneath the fill soil failed causing the fill to fail also.

Another dramatic cause of slope failure is water in tension cracks in soil or rock or water seeping through these materials. Water in tension cracks such as those shown in Figure 3 develops hydrostatic pressure that pushes the soil downhill. Figure 4 is an example of the pressure that can develop in a tension crack. A 10 feet deep crack is certainly possible if not probable. The total force exerted against the side of the crack is the area of the triangle or 3,120 pounds. This is force per one- foot length of crack so if the crack is 20 long on the ground surface the total force driving the soil downslope is 62,400 pounds.

Generally, during a rain event the crack fills with water to the height needed to cause the slope to move. As a result the cracks widens and the water in the crack drops so movement stops. Rain then supplies more water to the crack until the height of water needed to again move the slope is reached. Repetition of this process eventually causes the slope to fail totally.

Tension cracks also allow easy access for water to enter the subsurface and as the water seeps through the geologic materials it exerts a driving force. . For these reasons it is prudent to find these cracks and fill them with soil. This idea applies especially to County roads.

So water tends to be the bad factor in all cases. Water adds weight to the driving forces, it decreases the strength of geologic materials and it adds a great deal of pressure to the overall system. That is why properly engineered surface and subsurface drainage to a site development plan is so important. County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 139 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study cont…

Figure 3 – Failure of slope by adding fill and water.

Tension Crack above slope

H = 10 ft. P = 1/2 unit wt. of water X H*2 P = 1/2 (62.4) 10*2 P = 3,120 pounds per lineal foot

Pressure Diagram

Figure 4 – Example calculations of water pressure in a soil tension crack.

Mitigating the Effects of Landsliding

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 140 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG E: Geologic Hazards Study cont…

The best mitigation technique is to avoid the problem. This is true with both site development and with County roads. Technically this is relatively easy to do with the tools now available. Practically speaking avoidance may not be possible, particularly with County roads. The Idaho Geological Survey has mapped the existing landslides and they are shown on the geology maps on the CD. The landslides are included in GTU-5. With this information it is easy to locate old landslide and then decide on the best mitigation technique, depending upon whether it is new site development or County road maintenance. Besides avoidance the other mitigation techniques are to reduce the driving forces and/or increase the resisting forces. Reducing the driving forces includes changing the line or grade, draining the surface, draining the subsurface and reducing weight. Increasing the resisting forces includes draining the subsurface, counterweight fills, walls, anchors or piles. Note that water control is included in both lists and supports the notion that site surface and subsurface water control should be the first consideration and should be included in any site improvement and road maintenance plan. Generally, site water control is the most economical mitigation technique.

Technical Help

A civil engineer should design most site development projects. Civil engineers are the general practitioners of the engineering profession and, if needed, the civil engineer will contact a geotechnical engineer for consultation on such areas as landsliding, foundation design, drainage and slope stability. The descriptions of the Geotechnical Terrain Units includes suggestions on engineering requirements in each geotechnical terrain unit.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 141 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report

NEZ PERCE COUNTY GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD STUDY DESCRIPTION OF GEOTECHNICAL TERRAIN UNITS

GTU 1 – Colluvium from Basalt Qcb

Terrain Unit 1 generally lies along the north and south slopes of the Clearwater River and the North Fork of the Clearwater River. It is composed primarily of basalt colluvium and basalt bedrock but also includes deposits of soil at the bottom of avalanche chutes. The colluvium is poorly sorted brown muddy gravel comprised of angular and subangular pebbles, cobbles, and boulders of basalt in a matrix of silt and clay. There are many natural landslides in this geologic unit, particularly on the north side of the Clearwater River. This indicates that landsliding is associated with the soil and geology and is likely to occur with improper site development.

Basalt crops out where colluvium and talus have been removed by gravity and where bedrock forms steep cliffs. Rock falls may occur causing potential Hazards to structures below and above; appropriate setbacks should be required.

Slope - Slopes range from 10% to vertical. The flat and gently sloping areas are generally small and on ridge tops and should be studied for access road alignment and slope stability since roads will cross areas with steep natural slopes.

Ground Water - Ground water is deep and controlled by the basalt bedrock. However, there are isolated near surface ground water sources controlled by geology.

Erosion – The fine grain portion of this soil is erosion prone.

Soils – The soil is colluvium that is poorly sorted gravel with silt and clay matrix. The soil overlies bedrock and can be thin or thick.

Landslide Potential – HIGH - The colluvium is subject to landsliding and the creek bottoms are avalanche chutes. Natural landslides generally occur toward the top of the steep hillsides. Talus slopes should be avoided. Debris flow chutes are common and require special attention, particularly toward the end of the chute where development may occur. The geology map should be consulted to identify these chutes.

Earthwork – The colluvial soil can be excavated with large earthmoving equipment. Compacted fills are difficult to construct because of the particle size range and the fine soil. Moisture conditioning is essential for compaction.

Roadways – These soils will provide an adequate foundation for roads. Cuts and fills will be required on the steep hillsides. Cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V unless by recommendation of a geotechnical/geological engineer.

Foundations – Foundations should bear on undisturbed soil, bedrock or engineered fill. Set-backs from natural slopes should be required. The existing landslide deposits and the avalanche deposits should be avoided.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 142 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

Septic Systems – Septic or waste water systems should be located below development and where the water will not surface or cause slope instability. Near surface bedrock and the steep slopes will cause effluent to surface. Stock or other water storage ponds should be avoided.

Site Specific Studies – Most of the area in this unit is steeper than 20% and will therefore require a Site Improvement Permit. All of the steep slopes and the avalanche prone valleys should be classed as Special Areas of Concern. The Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Report should specifically address landslide potential from the proposed development including cuts and fills, location of building and location of septic or other wastewater disposal systems. The location of existing landslides is well marked on geology maps but should be located in the field and appropriate setbacks for site improvements established. Any debris chutes should be identified. Road cut and fill slopes should be specified. The Engineering Hydrology Report should include surface water disposal and stormwater management. Site development should be designed by a civil engineer and a geotechnical or geological engineer licensed in Idaho.

GTU 2 – Loess and loess over basalt Ql, Qp, Qlcr Qld, QTlbr

The relatively flat portions of the County are generally covered by silty and clayey loess. The Lewiston basin has calcareous wind deposited silt, Ql, from 5 to 20 feet thick on top of relatively flat basalts. The Palouse Formation, Qp, comprises the Palouse Hills to the north and the loess can be up to 200 feet thick. The Qlcr geologic unit is loess, colluvium and residuum on gentle dip slopes of basalt and Qld is 1 to 6 feet of loess mantling duripan or lime and silica cemented angular basalt clasts.

To the east the QTlbr geologic unit represents generally 1 to 6 feet of loess over basalt which has weathered to clayey saprolite. QTslr represents thin deposits of loess over transported and residual sediments.

In general loess is a fine-grain wind deposited sandy, silty, clayey soil with a low dry density. It has clay cementation that makes it strong and stable when dry. However, the soil is highly compressible due to its low density and highly unstable when wet. It can become wet naturally generally resulting in landslides. Development can also cause the soil to become wet or saturated resulting in large settlements under applied loads and/or loss of bearing capacity. Natural landslides occur on slopes steeper that about 20% and under natural moisture contents generally higher that 18%.

Slope - Slopes are flat (0-10%) to sloping (10-20%). However some slopes exceed 20% and slopes should be checked for each site.

Ground Water – Regional ground water is generally deep but thin clay layers in the loess can cause local perched water tables. It is these water tables that cause high local moisture contents resulting in slope instability.

Erosion - Erosion potential is high on both natural and made ground.

Soils – Loess is wind deposited soil that varies from sand to silt to clay. Generally to soil becomes more fine grain toward the east. The clay acts as a cementing agent that provides strength to the sand and silt particles. However, loess is subject to collapse and loss of strength upon wetting. Thickness

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 143 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

of the loess varies from up to 200 feet in the uplands near Genesee to about 6 feet near the eastern county boundary.

Landslide Potential – Loess is subject to shallow landslides on steep slopes and deep landslide on more gentle slopes. Landslide potential is generally associated with natural water contents over 18 percent. Therefore all made cut or fill slopes should be protected from surface water infiltration.

Earthwork – Loess is strong due to clay cementation and, without water infiltration, can stand in vertical slopes. Steep slopes are sometimes desirable because they decrease surface area for water infiltration and erosion. Earthwork should be accomplished in dry weather.

Roadways – Loess has poor road support capabilities, generally requiring a minimum of 8 inches of crushed rock surfacing and good surface drainage. Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. Cut slopes can be vertical depending on the natural water content of the soil to be cut.

Foundations – Foundation support capabilities of this soil is good except when wet. Loess tends to collapse and cause large settlements or complete loss of support. Developments should include adequate surface and foundation drainage to prevent soil saturation.

Septic Systems – Septic or wastewater systems will not work because loess is relatively impermeable. Septic systems and surface ponds may cause collapse of loess.

Site Specific Studies - Loess soils are variable and subject to collapse and loss of bearing capacity. Subdivisions and large structures should require a Site Improvement Permit. All of the steep slopes should be classed as Special Areas of Concern. The Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Report should specifically address landslide potential from the proposed development including cuts and fills, location of building and location of septic or other wastewater disposal systems. Site development should be designed by a civil engineer and a geotechnical or geological engineer licensed in Idaho.

GTU 3 – Flood Plains, Valley Bottoms, Terraces and Colluvium Qam, Qoam, Qas, Qac, Qac, Qat And Qcb, Qcg 20% slope

This unit includes Quaternary alluvial channel and flood plain deposits of the Clearwater River and tributaries to the Clearwater River. Alluvium along the Clearwater River is composed of well- sorted and rounded sandy gravel derived from the granites upstream. The side-stream alluvium tends to be subrounded to rounded pebbles, cobbles and boulders of basalt.

Also included in this unit are areas of basalt colluvium (GTU-1) and granite colluvium (GTU- 6) on slopes less than 20%.

Slope – The slopes in this unit vary from flat (0-10%) to sloping (10-20%).

Ground Water - The water table may be at or near the ground surface depending upon the relationship of the site to streams and soil permeability. The position of the water table will vary seasonally depending on precipitation, irrigation and infiltration. Development may change or affect

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 144 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

the position of the water table. The potential for flooding and ground water problems in this unit is high again depending on the position of the site with respect to local streams.

Erosion – The soils in this unit have relatively high permeability so this unit supports infiltration rather than runoff. However, fine-grain soil will erode in cut and fill slopes.

Soils – The soil includes stream, slope-wash and gravity deposits and can vary in grain size from clay to cobbles. Individual development sites can include more than one geologic unit since units can interfinger. GTU-3 also includes soils described in GTU-1 and GTU-6.

Landslide Potential – Natural slopes are relatively flat and stable. Set backs from existing landslides should be required.

Earthwork – Excavation within this unit will be relatively easy. However, it may be difficult to keep side slopes open and stable in excavations below the water table. Excavated soil will be good structural fill if organic matter is removed.

Roadways – This unit, except for pockets of silt and clay, will support roadways. Some frost heaving may occur because of high ground water and fine grain soil.

Foundations – The sand and gravel will provide good support for foundations, except with a high water table.

Septic Systems – Near surface water tables and flooding will limit the use of septic systems.

Site Specific Studies - Engineering Hydrology Report should be required because of the potential for high ground water.

GTU 4– Gravels Qb, Qm, Tcg

Three geologic formations make up this unit, the geologically older Clearwater Gravels (Tcg), the Missoula Floods backwater deposits (Qm), and the Bonneville Flood Gravels (Qb). The Clearwater Gravel is primarily mainstream channel gravels and sands that form a dissected terrace. These gravels are topped in areas by the Missoula Flood Gravels. The Missoula floods deposited basalt rich gravel and coarse sand. The Bonneville Flood gravels are basaltic gravels and sandy gravels deposited along the Snake River. These gravels form the Lewiston bench and are cemented.

Slope – The slope is flat (0-10%) for the most part but there are some local areas that are sloping (10-20%). Some areas along the Lewiston bench form cliffs because the gravels are more rock like due to cementation.

Ground Water - Ground water is probably associated with the elevation of the two rivers. However, local perched water tables will exit.

Erosion – The gravels on the Lewiston bench are cemented and the other gravels are coarse grained so erosion is limited to the silty and sandy portions.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 145 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

Landslide Potential - These soils are relatively strong and on flat slopes so the potential for natural landslides is small.

Earthwork – The gravels are cemented in areas and can be difficult to excavate. Ripping may be necessary. All of these soils are acceptable for structural fill. Revegetation may be difficult because the soil lacks nutrients.

Roadways – These soils make excellent sub-grade for roads. When compacted as structural fill the soil is good base course material.

Foundations – The gravels provide excellent support for light to heavy foundation loads.

Septic Systems – Permeability is poor in the areas of cementation (Lewiston bench) and the gravels may not support subsurface disposal of water. In other areas the relatively high permeability will make septic systems work well but the effluent may surface on slopes.

Site Specific Studies - None

GTU 5 – Landslides, Alluvial fans below debris chutes and Made Ground Qls, Qad, m

This unit is made up of landslide areas (Qls), alluvial fans below debris chutes (Qad) and made ground or fills (m). The inherent instability of a landslide mass will adversely affect any development and, generally, landslides should not be developed in any manner. Earthwork on or around landslide masses may increase instability and the potential for new landsliding. Land up-slope and down-slope from landslides could be affected.

Made ground is an artificial fill composed of excavated, transported, and placed soil or rock. The fill soils can be highly variable but typically are derived from local sources. Included are the Corps of Engineers levees, the Potlatch Corporation landfills and water treatment area, and State Highway fills. Each fill should be evaluated for suitability for the specific development.

Alluvial fan deposits are formed at the end of debris chutes off of steep hillsides. These chutes are marked in red on the geology maps. They are formed from high-energy events that have the ability to destroy any site improvements on the fan.

Slope - The slope of landslides vary from sloping (10 to 20%) to step (20 to 50%). The slope of fills varies from flat to over 50%. Generally the top of the fill is flat and the sides slope at some angle. Fans slope 10 to 20% and are therefore favorable building sites; however, they are dangerous sites.

Ground Water – Ground water levels will vary in landslide masses. Generally the water table is high. Some fills trap ground water and become saturated and unstable. However, most fills do not have a water table. Fans have variable water tables depending on the water from the chutes.

Erosion – Erosion potential in landslide soil is moderate to high. Most fresh, loose and unconsolidated slide masses are erosion prone. Erosion potential depends on the type of soil in the fill and the ground slope. Fans have low erosion potential.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 146 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

Landslide Potential - Slide masses are inherently unstable and any disturbance to the slide mass or the drainage may re-activate the slide. Fills are stable if they have been compacted and tested. Such fills will have a record of testing. Non-tested fills are suspect. Fans are generally stable.

Earthwork – Landslides are dangerous to work on without expert advice. Made ground can be worked with most equipment. Fans are generally stable.

Roadways – Landslides will not support roads. Some made ground has been constructed for road embankments and has been placed properly. However, most made ground should be tested or avoided.

Foundations – Building construction on slide masses is not recommended. Building construction on compacted and tested fills will depend on the compaction requirements and the foundation load. Building on non-tested fills is not recommended. Building on alluvial fans is not recommended.

Septic Systems - Septic systems are not recommended in this GTU.

Specific Studies – Any development in this GTU can induce slope instability. The development should be designated as Special Areas of Concern and should require as a minimum a Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Report. Surface water control and placement of septic disposal areas are of great concern. Alluvial fan deposits should specifically be addressed because high-speed flood conditions create these geologic features. See the geology map to identify alluvial fans, Qad.

GTU 6 – Colluvium and residuum from granitic and metamorphic rocks Qcg, QTcr

Granitic and metamorphic rocks (Qcg) are exposed toward the east side of the county along the Clearwater River. These rocks are covered with colluvium that varies in thickness but generally is thicker at the base of the slope. It is primarily poorly sorted muddy gravel composed of angular and subangular pebbles cobbles and boulders in a matrix of sand, silt and clay.

Slope – Slope varies from 50% to near vertical

Ground Water - Ground water is deep and controlled by the bedrock. However, there are isolated near surface ground water sources controlled by geology.

Erosion - The fine grain portion of this soil is erosion prone.

Soils - The soil is colluvium that is poorly sorted gravel with silt and clay matrix. The soil overlies bedrock and can be thin or thick.

Landslide Potential – HIGH - The colluvium is subject to landsliding because of the steep slopes. Talus slopes should be avoided. Debris flow chutes are common and require special attention, particularly toward the end of the chute where development may occur. The geology map should be consulted to identify these chutes. Also GTU-1 is above this unit and some landslides from GTU-1 move onto GTU-6.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 147 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG F: Nez Perce County Soils Report cont…

Earthwork – The colluvial soil can be excavated with large earthmoving equipment. Compacted fills are difficult to construct because of the particle size range, the fine soil and the steep slopes. Moisture conditioning is essential for compaction.

Roadways – These soils will provide an adequate foundation for roads. Cuts and fills will be required on the steep hillsides. Cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V unless by recommendation of a geotechnical/geological engineer.

Foundations – Foundations should bear on undisturbed soil, bedrock or engineered fill. Setbacks from natural or made slopes should be required. Any existing landslide deposits and avalanche deposits should be avoided.

Septic Systems – Septic or wastewater systems should be located below development and where the water will not surface or cause slope instability. Near surface bedrock and the steep slopes will cause effluent to surface. Stock or other water storage ponds should be avoided.

Site Specific Studies - Most of the area in this unit is steeper than 50% and will therefore require a Site Improvement Permit. All of the steep slopes and the avalanche prone valleys should be classed as Special Areas of Concern. The Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Report should specifically address landslide potential from the proposed development including cuts and fills, location of building and location of septic or other wastewater disposal systems. Any debris chutes should be identified. Road cut and fill slopes should be specified. The Engineering Hydrology Report should include surface water disposal and stormwater management. Site development should be designed by a civil engineer and a geotechnical or geological engineer licensed in Idaho.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 148 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG G: Capabilities Assessment Tool

Steering Committee Note: This Capability Assessment worksheet was provided by FEMA Region X. Most of the additional capabilities for the Cities of Culdesac and Peck are provided by the County, however there may some isolated local ordnances or programs that were beyond the purview of this Capabilities Overview. More detailed information for both the County and the City of Lewiston are included, the answer for the County is always listed first. Where only one answer is provided it speaks for both the County and the City.

Yes/No Plans Question Yes/No Notes Year Is safety explicitly included in the plan’s Yes Both the County and the City of Comprehensive/Master Plan Yes / growth and development policies? Lewiston have Comprehensive Yes Master Plans, the Cities of Peck and Culdesac do not.

Capital Improvements Plan No / Yes Are mitigation related structure and No The County does not, the City of infrastructure projects included in the Lewiston Does, however CIP? mitigation actions are a function of the AHMP.

Economic Development Plan No / No Are there plans for economic No Economic Development functions development in high hazard areas and for both the County and the City are there mitigation strategies to of Lewiston are contracted to implement it? Valley Vision, a local community organization..

Emergency Operations Plan Yes / Are evacuation routes in high hazard No All sub-jurisdictions are covered Yes areas? within the County EAP

Transportation Plan Yes / Are major transportation routes in high No The County and the City of Yes hazard areas? Lewiston have separate plans.

Housing Plan No / No

Are there any particular cultural Yes The presence of the Nez Perce Other Plans No / Yes practices or beliefs that relate or tribe does present some cultural translate into actions for development practices that need to be taken or non-development in high hazard into account in development. areas? The City of Lewiston also has a Waste Water plan.

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 149 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG G: Capabilities Assessment Tool cont…

Land Use Planning and Ordinances Yes/No Question Yes/No Notes or Practices

Are there any laws (e.g., not building Both the County and the City of Zoning ordinance or practices Yes / No / in the floodplain, crop rotation, etc.) No Lewiston have specific zoning Yes that preclude building in areas that ordinances regarding high risk are hazardous and do you have any areas, however waivers are rules to prevent it? possible. Is the ordinance an effective No / No Building and development is Subdivision ordinance or practices Yes / measure for reducing hazard generally encouraged, however Yes impacts? there is landowner education materials available regarding best firewise principles. The City of Lewiston has a Natural hazard specific ordinance or No / Are there laws to discourage No / No Stormwater Plan practices (stormwater, steep slopes, Yes development in high hazard and wildfire) environmentally sensitive areas?

No / No The City of Lewiston has an Acquisition of land for open space and No / Are there policies in place for acquisition policy. public recreation uses Yes preservation of open spaces in high hazard areas?

The county and the city both Maintenance programs to reduce risk, Yes / Are the ordinance adequately Unknown have public works oriented e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage Yes administered and enforced? divisions, as well as specific sub systems contracts with vendors for these types of services.

Other Administrative and Technical Identify whether your Tribe has the following administrative and technical positions. These include staff and their skills and tools that can be used for mitigation planning and to implement specific mitigation actions.

Does coordination Administrative Resource Yes/No Describe capability need to be improved? Notes Yes/No

Tribal Council/Governing Body Yes Yes

Tribal Chief(s) Yes Yes

Mitigation Planning Committee Yes Mitigation Projects No Steering Committee formed in 2018

Business Committees No

Mutual Aid Agreements (GSA, etc.) Yes Various, including a 10 county Emergency Management MOA and

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 150 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG G: Capabilities Assessment Tool cont…

Does coordination Administrative Resource Yes/No Describe capability need to be improved? Notes Yes/No other first response MMAs

Is this a Is staffing adequate to Is staff trained on Is additional staff (outside staff Staff Resource enforce regulations? hazards and resources) to implement actions? position? Yes/No mitigation? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

Building Inspector Yes / Yes Yes / Yes unknown unknown

Environmental/Natural Resources No / No Specialist

Emergency Manager Yes / Yes No Yes No

Community Planner Yes / Yes No unknown unknown

Housing Specialist No / No

Civil Engineer No / Yes unknown unknown unknown

Historian/Cultural Advisor No / No Historical services are fulfilled by the Nez Perce County Historical Society, as well as Lewis Clark State College

Financial or Grants Specialist No / Yes unknown unknown unknown

Administrative Staff Person Yes n/a n/a n/a

Other (Biologist, Public Health No / No Public Health functions Specialist) are delegated to the Idaho Public Health District 2, located in Lewiston, ID

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 151 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG G: Capabilities Assessment Tool cont…

Technical Resource Yes/No Question Yes/No Notes

Is the level of technical No There is a current plan in place to train staff Warning systems/services Yes / Yes capability and training of in and roll out AlertSense and IPAWS in late (Reverse 911, outdoor warning your staff adequate? 2018 signals)

Is your staff trained to do Yes This function is completed through the Nez Hazard data and information Yes / Yes mitigation related stuff or do Perce County Office of Emergency they need more training? Management

Is the level of technical unknown Grant writing No / Yes capability and training of your staff adequate?

Is your staff trained to do Yes Both the County and the City of Lewiston GIS analysis Yes / Yes mitigation related stuff or do enjoy strong GIS capabilities and a good they need more training? working relationship with each other.

Other What technical assistance is needed for your Tribe to implement actions? Financial Identify whether your jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use the following funding resources for hazard mitigation.

Access/ Funding Resource Eligibility Notes (Yes/No)

Capital improvements project funding Yes / Yes Through voter approval only

Gaming revenue, enterprise revenues No / No

Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services No / Yes The City of Lewiston does have Water and Sewer fees

Fees from festivals, campsites, and recreational No / No areas

Permits and other fees Yes / Yes Both the County and the City collect fees for various permits.

Federal funding (BIA, HUD) Yes / Yes Both the City and the County apply for various grants, including SHSP and EMPG (both of which are administered through the Nez Perce County Office of Emergency Management)

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020 152 TITLEAPPENDIX PAG G: Capabilities Assessment Tool cont…

Access/ Funding Resource Eligibility Notes (Yes/No)

Contract services to Federal agencies and Yes ./ Yes On an as-needed or competitive basis, pending approval. businesses

Other - What sources of revenue does the Tribe n/a have? How does the Tribe envision making its matches or cost-share in its Federal grant funding (e.g. in-kind or cash match or a combination)?

Education and Outreach Identify education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.

Program/Organization Yes/No Question Notes

What have been some shortcomings Gatherings, pow-wows, feasts, festivals, N/a or issues with outreach efforts? How celebrations and meetings do you plan to resolve them?

Natural disaster or safety related school Yes Is there a gap in your outreach This program will be re-designed programs efforts? If yes, what steps do you by the Nez Perce County Office of intend taking to address this? Emergency Management for roll out during 2019 for all schools within Nez Perce County Fire safety programs Yes Is there a gap in your outreach This program will be re-designed by efforts? If yes, what steps do you the Nez Perce County Office of intend taking to address this? Emergency Management for roll out during 2019 for all schools within Nez Perce County Other Yes Are there any efforts new or additional Ready, Set, Go will be rolled out as programs outreach efforts that may be an All Hazards Notification and considered by your Tribe? Evacuation Program in late 2018

The Steering Committee would like to thank Susan Rigg (Nez Perce Planning and Building) for her incredible assistance in editing and proofreading this Plan.

[section ends]

County of Nez Perce AHMP – January 2020