Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-049 - Res. Approving the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan RESOLUTION NO. 2�23-n4q APPROVAL OF THE MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, Mason County is required by federal law to under 44 CFR§201.6-Local Mitigation Plans,Robert T.Stafford Act Sec 102(5),and State Law RCW Chapter 38.52.030,38.52.,38.52.070,and 38.52.107. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners was awarded a federal grant to complete the update of the expiring previously approved Mason County Hazard Mitigation Grant and WHEREAS, Mason County contracted with an approved professional to update Mason County's Hazard Mitigation Plan,and it has been submitted to the appropriate Washington State Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency reviewing authorities,who have approved the plan to be adopted by the Mason County Commission; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mason County Board of County Commissioners that the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated September 2023 entitled Mason County 2023 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan,Volume 1-Countywide Elements has been reviewed; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the Mason County Board of County Commissioners have reviewed the letter dated August 24,2023,from Washington State Emergency Management Division and FEMA's review recommending the plan be adopted by the Mason County Board of County Commissioners; DATED this 12th day of September,2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON McKenzie(;MW N rk of the Board Sharon Trask,Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: R y Neather m,Vice Chair Tim WhiteheabSP.Y`� Kevin Shutty,Commissioner C:\Users\MSmith\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\BPXBIRCN\Resolution_Approving_MCH M P.d oc MASON COUNTY 2023 MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VOLUME 1 - COUNTYWIDE ELEMENTS SEPTEMBER 2023 Bridgeview Consulting, LLC. 915 N. Laurel Lane | Tacoma, WA 98406 | 253.301.1330 Cover Photo Courtesy of Fire Chief Beau Bakken, North Mason Regional Fire Authority and Social Media Post 2022 December King Tide Impact MASON COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION 2023 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING ELEMENTS SEPTEMBER 2023 Prepared for: Mason County Division of Emergency Management 100 Public Works Drive Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Prepared by: Bridgeview Consulting LLC 915 No. Laurel Lane Tacoma, WA 98406 (253) 301-1330 Bridgeview Consulting i September 2023 Mason County 2023 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1—Countywide Planning Elements TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. xi Plan Update ........................................................................................................................................................................ xi Initial Response to DMA in Mason County ............................................................................................................ xi The 2023 Mason County Plan Update—What has changed?....................................................................... xii The Planning Partnership ......................................................................................................................................... xiv Plan Development Methodology ............................................................................................................................ xiv Mitigation Goals............................................................................................................................................................... xv Progress Report of 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan ........................................................................................... xvi Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... xvii Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Authority .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Purpose of Planning .................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Plan Adoption ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.5 Scope and Plan Organization ................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2. Planning Process ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Secure Grant Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Internal Planning Group Formation ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Planning Partnership .................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Coordination With Agencies and Other Stakeholders .................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Review of Plans and Studies .................................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.6 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................................... 2-11 2.6.1 News Releases ......................................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.6.2 Internet ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.6.3 Plan Development Milestones .......................................................................................................... 2-12 2.7 Hazard Questionnaire Results .............................................................................................................................. 2-21 Chapter 3. Community Profile ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Climate .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 Major Past Hazard Events ......................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.1 Definition ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.2 Critical Facilities Update ....................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.4.3 Community Lifelines ............................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.4.4 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................. 3-13 3.5 Population ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.5.1 Population Trends ................................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.5.2 Social Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................... 3-15 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting ii September 2023 3.5.3 Age Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.5.4 Race, Ethnicity, and Language .......................................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.5 Disabled Populations ............................................................................................................................ 3-17 3.6 Economy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-17 3.6.1 Income and Employment .................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.2 Housing Stock .......................................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6.3 Building Stock Age ................................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.7 Land Use Planning and Future Development Trends ................................................................................. 3-20 3.8 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.8.1 How Does Climate Change Affect Hazard Mitigation? ............................................................ 3-25 Chapter 4. Risk Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.1 Hazard Identification and Profiles .................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Risk Assessment Process and Tools ................................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.3 Hazus and GIS Applications ................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.4 Calculated Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria ........................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Probability of Occurrence and Return Intervals ............................................................................................. 4-9 4.4 Community Variations to the Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 4-9 4.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 Chapter 5. Drought ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 General Background.................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.1 Extent and Location ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.2 Previous Occurrences ............................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.3 Severity ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-6 5.2.4 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................... 5-7 5.3 Vulnerability Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ..................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3.3 Impact on Property ................................................................................................................................. 5-9 5.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................... 5-9 5.3.5 Impact on Economy ................................................................................................................................ 5-9 5.3.6 Impact on Environment ...................................................................................................................... 5-10 5.3.7 Impact from Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 5-10 5.4 Future Development Trends ................................................................................................................................. 5-10 5.5 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-11 Chapter 6. Earthquake .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 General Background.................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Earthquake Classifications ................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.2 Effect of Soil Types .................................................................................................................................. 6-6 6.1.3 Fault Classification .................................................................................................................................. 6-7 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting iii September 2023 6.2 Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................................................ 6-7 6.2.1 Extent and Location ................................................................................................................................ 6-8 6.2.2 Previous Occurrences .......................................................................................................................... 6-19 6.2.3 Severity ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-21 6.2.4 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................. 6-22 6.3 Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 6-23 6.3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 6-23 6.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................................... 6-24 6.3.3 Impact on Property ............................................................................................................................... 6-24 6.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 6-27 6.3.5 Impact on Economy .............................................................................................................................. 6-29 6.3.6 Impact on Environment ...................................................................................................................... 6-29 6.3.7 Impact from Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 6-29 6.4 Future Development Trends ................................................................................................................................. 6-30 6.5 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6-30 6.6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6-31 Chapter 7. Flood ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 General Background.................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Flooding Types .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Dam Failure ................................................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.1.3 Measuring Floods and Floodplains ................................................................................................... 7-8 7.1.4 Flood Insurance Rate Maps.................................................................................................................. 7-9 7.1.5 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ................................................................................. 7-11 7.2 Hazard Profile .............................................................................................................................................................. 7-15 7.2.1 Extent and Location .............................................................................................................................. 7-15 7.2.2 Previous Occurrences .......................................................................................................................... 7-21 7.2.3 Severity ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-23 7.2.4 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................. 7-24 7.3 Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 7-25 7.3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 7-25 7.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................................... 7-26 7.3.3 Impact on Property ............................................................................................................................... 7-27 7.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 7-31 7.3.5 Impact on Economy .............................................................................................................................. 7-32 7.3.6 Impact on Environment ...................................................................................................................... 7-33 7.3.7 Impact from Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 7-33 7.4 Future Development Trends ................................................................................................................................. 7-35 7.5 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7-35 7.6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7-37 Chapter 8. Landslide ................................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 General Background.................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................................................ 8-4 8.2.1 Extent and Location ................................................................................................................................ 8-4 8.2.2 Previous Occurrences ............................................................................................................................ 8-7 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting iv September 2023 8.2.3 Severity ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-15 8.2.4 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................. 8-15 8.3 Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 8-17 8.3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 8-17 8.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................................... 8-18 8.3.3 Impact on Property ............................................................................................................................... 8-19 8.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 8-20 8.3.5 Impact on Economy .............................................................................................................................. 8-21 8.3.6 Impact on Environment ...................................................................................................................... 8-21 8.3.7 Impact from Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 8-21 8.4 Future Development Trends ................................................................................................................................. 8-22 8.5 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8-22 8.6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8-23 Chapter 9. Severe Weather ..................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 General Background.................................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 Semi-Permanent High- and Low-Pressure Areas Over the North Pacific Ocean ........... 9-1 9.1.2 Atmospheric Phenomenon .................................................................................................................. 9-2 9.1.3 Thunderstorms ......................................................................................................................................... 9-3 9.1.4 Damaging Winds ...................................................................................................................................... 9-6 9.1.5 Hail Storms ................................................................................................................................................. 9-8 9.1.6 Ice Storms.................................................................................................................................................... 9-9 9.1.7 Extreme Temperatures ....................................................................................................................... 9-10 9.2 Hazard Profile .............................................................................................................................................................. 9-14 9.2.1 Extent and Location .............................................................................................................................. 9-14 9.2.2 Previous Occurrences .......................................................................................................................... 9-14 9.2.3 Severity ...................................................................................................................................................... 9-14 9.2.4 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................. 9-16 9.3 Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 9-16 9.3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 9-16 9.3.2 Impact on Life, Health and Safety .................................................................................................... 9-17 9.3.3 Impact on Property ............................................................................................................................... 9-17 9.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 9-18 9.3.5 Impact on Economy .............................................................................................................................. 9-18 9.3.6 Impact on Environment ...................................................................................................................... 9-19 9.3.7 Impact from Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 9-19 9.4 Future Development Trends ................................................................................................................................. 9-19 9.5 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9-20 9.6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9-20 Chapter 10. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1.1 Wildfire Impact ....................................................................................................................................... 10-4 10.1.2 Identifying Wildfire Risk ..................................................................................................................... 10-4 10.1.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................................... 10-5 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting v September 2023 10.2.1 Extent and Location .............................................................................................................................. 10-5 10.2.2 Previous Occurrences .......................................................................................................................... 10-5 10.2.3 Severity ...................................................................................................................................................... 10-9 10.2.4 Frequency .............................................................................................................................................. 10-10 10.3 Vulnerability Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 10-12 10.3.1 Overview................................................................................................................................................. 10-12 10.3.2 Impact on Life Health & Safety ...................................................................................................... 10-13 10.3.3 Impact on Property ............................................................................................................................ 10-14 10.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ..................................................................... 10-14 10.3.5 Impact on Economy ........................................................................................................................... 10-15 10.3.6 Impact on Environment ................................................................................................................... 10-15 10.3.7 Impacts from Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 10-16 10.4 Future Development Trends ............................................................................................................................ 10-16 10.5 Issues ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10-17 10.6 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10-18 Chapter 11. Hazard Ranking .................................................................................................................. 11-1 11.1 Calculated Priority Risk Index ............................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.1.1 Calculated Priority Rate Index .......................................................................................................... 11-3 11.2 Social Vulnerability ................................................................................................................................................. 11-5 11.2.1 Classifications .......................................................................................................................................... 11-6 11.2.2 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 11-9 Chapter 12. Mitigation Strategy ............................................................................................................. 12-1 12.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 12-1 12.1.1 Goals ............................................................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 12-1 12.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Action Items............................................................................ 12-2 12.3 Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Action Plan Status ................................................................................... 12-3 12.4 Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives ...................................................................................................................... 12-4 12.5 CRS Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 12-5 12.6 Benefit/Cost Review ........................................................................................................................................... 12-26 12.7 Prioritization of Initiatives ............................................................................................................................... 12-27 12.8 Additional Mitigation Activities: .................................................................................................................... 12-30 12.9 Funding Opportunities ....................................................................................................................................... 12-30 Chapter 13. Capability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 Laws and Ordinances ............................................................................................................................................. 13-1 13.1.1 Federal ........................................................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.1.2 State-Level Planning Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 13-3 13.1.3 Local Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 13-4 13.2 Mitigation-Related Regulatory Authority ...................................................................................................... 13-5 13.3 Washington State Rating Bureau Levels of Service ................................................................................ 13-11 13.3.1 Public Protection Classification Program ................................................................................. 13-11 13.3.2 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule ...................................................................... 13-12 13.3.3 Public Safety Programs ..................................................................................................................... 13-12 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting vi September 2023 Chapter 14. Plan Maintenance Strategy ................................................................................................ 14-1 14.1 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan ........................................................................................... 14-1 14.1.1 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Implementation through Existing Programs ............................................................................................... 14-3 14.3 Continued Public Involvement........................................................................................................................... 14-4 References ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Appendix A Acronyms and Definitions .............................................................................................. 1 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Appendix B FEMA Plan Approval Letter ........................................................................................... 1 Appendix C Example Template for Future Progress Reports ................................................... 1 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting vii September 2023 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page No. Table 2-1 Planning Team Membership and Tasks ................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-2 Stakeholders and Areas of Participation .............................................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events ....................................................................................2-17 Table 3-1 Disaster Declarations for Hazard Events in Mason County 1956-2022 ................................... 3-5 Table 3-2 Storm Disaster History by Month, Recurrence, and Probability of occurrence .................... 3-8 Table 3-3 Mason County Critical Facilities ..............................................................................................................3-11 Table 3-4 Community Lifeline Descriptions ...........................................................................................................3-12 Table 3-5 2022 Population, Area, and Density Figures .....................................................................................3-14 Table 3-6 Percent of Years Structures Built 1939-2021* .................................................................................3-20 Table 3-7 Present Land Use in Planning Area* .....................................................................................................3-21 Table 3-8 Permit Applications 2019-2022* ...........................................................................................................3-23 Table 3-9 Relationship Between Climate Change and Identified County Hazards.................................3-26 Table 5-1 Drought Occurrences ..................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 6-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale Descriptions ................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Comparison Of Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration ..................................................... 6-6 Table 6-3 NEHRP Soil Classification System ............................................................................................................ 6-6 Table 6-4 Acres of NEHRP Soil Classification by Type Countywide .............................................................. 6-7 Table 6-5 Liquefiable Soils By Acres ........................................................................................................................6-18 Table 6-6 Potential Critical Facility Impact From Liquefaction Zones ........................................................6-19 Table 6-7 Historical Earthquakes Impacting The Planning Area ..................................................................6-21 Table 6-8 Building Structure Values Impacted By Earthquake Scenarios ................................................6-25 Table 6-9 Timeline of Building Code Standards ...................................................................................................6-27 Table 6-10 Expected Building Damage By Occupancy From100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake ...6-28 Table 6-11 Expected Building Damage By Occupancy From 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake ..6-28 Table 6-12 Estimated Earthquake Caused Debris ...............................................................................................6-29 Table 7-1 Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification ......................................................................... 7-6 Table 7-2 NFIP Insurance Policies in Force in 2017 ...........................................................................................7-13 Table 7-3 NFIP Insurance Policies in Force in 2022 ...........................................................................................7-13 Table 7-4 Community Status and Claims (2016) .................................................................................................7-14 Table 7-5 Community Status and Claims (2023) .................................................................................................7-15 Table 7-6 Flood Events Impacting Planning Area 1956-2016 ........................................................................7-22 Table 7-7 Population Exposed within Flood Hazard Areas .............................................................................7-27 Table 7-8 Acres in 100 and 500 Year Flood Hazard Areas for Jurisdiction's Boundary .....................7-28 Table 7-9 Structures At Risk .........................................................................................................................................7-29 Table 7-10 Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain .................................................................................7-31 Table 7-11 Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain .......................................................................7-31 Table 8-1 Mason County State Highways Slide Repair Costs (1925-2009) ..............................................8-15 Table 8-2 Acres of Landslide Hazard Areas by Slope or Type ........................................................................8-19 Table 8-3 Critical Facilities in Proximity to Historic Landslide or Unstable Slope Zones ..................8-20 Table 8-4 Critical Facilities within Proximity of Landslide Gentle & Steep Slope Zones ....................8-20 Table 10-1 Mason County Historic Fire Events 5 Acres or Greater .............................................................10-6 Table 10-2 Total Number Wildfire Events 2009-2021 .....................................................................................10-8 Table 10-3 Additional Historic Wildfire Incidents .............................................................................................10-8 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting viii September 2023 Table 10-4 LANDFIRE - Fire Regime Group Acres within Jurisdiction's Boundary ............................ 10-14 Table 10-5 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Exposed to Fire Regime Areas ................................. 10-15 Table 11-1 Countywide Calculated Priority risk Index ranking scores ......................................................11-1 Table 11-2 Hazard Ranking Summary ......................................................................................................................11-2 Table 11-3 Vulnerable Populations ...........................................................................................................................11-8 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview ......................................................................................................................... 11-11 Table 12-1 Objectives 2023...........................................................................................................................................12-2 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status.....................................................12-6 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................ 12-18 Table 12-4. Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives ................................................................. 12-27 Table 12-5. Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives .......................................... 12-28 Table 12-6 Grant Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 12-32 Table 12-7 Countywide Fiscal Capabilities Which Support Mitigation Planning Efforts ................. 12-33 Table 13-1 Mason County Legal and Regulatory Capability ...........................................................................13-7 Table 13-2 Administrative and Technical Capability .........................................................................................13-9 Table 13-3 Education and Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 13-10 Table 13-4 Countywide Public Protection Classification ............................................................................... 13-12 Table 13-5 Building Code Effectiveness Grading .............................................................................................. 13-12 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page No. Figure 2-1 December 2022 Press Release – Mason County Journal .............................................................2-12 Figure 2-2 Website ............................................................................................................................................................2-14 Figure 2-3 Facebook Post of the County’s Risk Assessment and Mitigation Planning Process ........2-15 Figure 2-4 Mason County PUD No. 1 Facebook Notification ...........................................................................2-16 Figure 2-5 FB Posting Announcing Updated Risk Maps Available for Review ........................................2-17 Figure 2-6 Introduction to Mason County Survey ...............................................................................................2-23 Figure 2-7 Pioneer Middle School Public Outreach Event ................................................................................2-24 Figure 2-8 PUD 1 Website for Mitigatoin Activities ............................................................................................2-24 Figure 3-1 Mason County 12-month Average Temperature 1900-2022 ..................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Mason County 12-month Precipitation Totals 1900-2022 .......................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3 Planning Area Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .....................................................................3-10 Figure 3-4 Hazardous Materials Facilities ..............................................................................................................3-13 Figure 3-5 Mason County Age Distribution ............................................................................................................3-16 Figure 3-6 Mason County 2021 Unemployment Rates ......................................................................................3-18 Figure 3-7 Mason County Land Use Classifications (2017) .............................................................................3-22 Figure 3-8 Climate Change Contributors .................................................................................................................3-25 Figure 5-1 Water Supply in Mason County January 2023 .................................................................................. 5-3 Figure 5-2 Historical Drought Conditions in Mason County 2015-2022 ..................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3 Palmer Z Index Short-Term Drought Conditions (August 2022) .............................................. 5-7 Figure 6-1 Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest ....................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2 Mason County Faults ................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-3 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Event ........................................................................................6-11 Figure 6-4 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Event ........................................................................................6-12 Figure 6-5 Canyon River (Price Lake) Scenario ....................................................................................................6-13 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting ix September 2023 Figure 6-6 Nisqually Fault Scenario ...........................................................................................................................6-14 Figure 6-7 Cascadia M9.0 Fault Scenario (Source: FEMA Risk Map, 2017) ..............................................6-15 Figure 6-8 NEHRP Soils ...................................................................................................................................................6-16 Figure 6-9 Liquefaction Susceptibility Zones ........................................................................................................6-17 Figure 6-10 PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region ............6-22 Figure 6-11 Mason County Earthquake Damage Based on M9.0 Cascadia Event (FEMA 2017) ......6-26 Figure 7-1 Schematic of Coastal Flood Zones within the National Flood Insurance Program ............ 7-3 Figure 7-2 Select Mason County Dams and Hazard Classification .................................................................. 7-8 Figure 7-3 Flood Hazard Area Referred to as a Floodplain ................................................................................ 7-9 Figure 7-4 Special Flood Hazard Area ......................................................................................................................7-10 Figure 7-5 Mason County 100-and 500-Year Flood Hazard Areas ...............................................................7-16 Figure 7-6 100-Year Flood Hazard Depth Grid for the City of Shelton (FEMA 2017 Risk Report) .7-18 Figure 7-7 Finch, Clark, Miller and Sund Creeks...................................................................................................7-21 Figure 7-8 December 3, 2007 Incident Highway 101 North of Shelton ......................................................7-24 Figure 7-9 Belfair-Tahuya Bridge on the Tahuya River December 2007 (DR 1734) ............................7-25 Figure 7-10 FEMA Coastal and Riverine Flood Damage in Mason County (2017 Risk Map) .............7-30 Figure 7-11 Critical Facily Proximity to 100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Areas ..................................7-32 Figure 8-1 Deep Seated Slide .......................................................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 8-2 Shallow Colluvial Slide ................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Figure 8-3 Bench Slide ....................................................................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 8-4 Large Slide ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Figure 8-5 Mason County Shoreline Environmental Designations (2021) ................................................. 8-6 Figure 8-6 House destroyed by landslide in Lilliwaup Winter 1998-1999 ................................................. 8-6 Figure 8-7 Comprehensive Plan Identified Critical Areas - Landslide Hazard Area ............................... 8-7 Figure 8-8 Highway Closure at Jorstad Landslide – Winter 1998-1999 ....................................................... 8-9 Figure 8-9 Lake Kokanee Landslide, South of Lake Cushman ........................................................................8-10 Figure 8-10 Before and After Pictures of SR 101/ 2.2 miles South of Beacon Pt. Road .......................8-10 Figure 8-11 SR 302 Slope Erosion Near Victor .....................................................................................................8-11 Figure 8-12 Highway 302 Landslide East of Victor (2022) .............................................................................8-11 Figure 8-13 Washington DNR Recorded Landslide Data (2017) ...................................................................8-12 Figure 8-14 Steep Slope Landslide Hazard Areas (2023) .................................................................................8-13 Figure 8-15 Landslide Hazard Area with Aerial Imagry ...................................................................................8-14 Figure 9-1 Atmospheric Rivers ...................................................................................................................................... 9-3 Figure 9-2 The Thunderstorm Life Cycle ................................................................................................................... 9-4 Figure 9-3 Lightening Fatalities 2011-2021 ............................................................................................................ 9-5 Figure 9-4 Windstorm Tracks Impacting the Pacific Northwest ..................................................................... 9-7 Figure 9-5 Hanukkah Eve Peak Wind Gusts ............................................................................................................. 9-8 Figure 9-6 Inauguration Day Storm Peak Wind Gusts ......................................................................................... 9-9 Figure 9-7 Types of Precipitation ................................................................................................................................. 9-9 Figure 9-8 NWS Wind Chill Index ...............................................................................................................................9-10 Figure 9-9 Heat Stress Index .........................................................................................................................................9-12 Figure 9-10 Temperature Index for Children ........................................................................................................9-12 Figure 9-11 Weather Fatalities ....................................................................................................................................9-13 Figure 10-1 Wildfire Hazard Potential .....................................................................................................................10-2 Figure 10-2 Wildfire Behavior Triangle ...................................................................................................................10-3 Figure 10-3 LANDFIRE Fire Regimes in Mason County ................................................................................. 10-11 Table of Contents Bridgeview Consulting x September 2023 Figure 10-4 Mean Fire Return Interval ................................................................................................................. 10-12 Figure 10-5 Measures to Protect Homes from Wildfire ................................................................................. 10-17 Figure 11-1 Washington State Department of Health Social Vulneability Index ....................................11-9 Figure 13-1 Counties in Puget Sound Regional Catastrophic Planning Region .......................................13-5 Figure 13-2 Mason County Fire Districts, Departments, and Regional Fire Authority ..................... 13-13 Bridgeview Consulting xi September 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) promotes proactive pre-disaster planning by making it a condition of receiving financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA established a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The DMA encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning, promoting sustainability as a strategy for disaster resistance. Sustainable hazard mitigation addresses the sound management of natural resources and local economic and social resiliency, and it recognizes that hazards and mitigation must be understood in a broad social and economic context. The planning network called for by the DMA helps local governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk-reduction projects. Disaster incidents will continue to occur, and with climate change, are expected to become more severe. Knowing this provides us with unique opportunities. Opportunities which, when implemented, help to reduce the impacts from those disaster incidents. While we cannot control nature, the impact from those disasters are within our ability to influence and change, at least to some degree. By targeting proactive measure in those vulnerable or critical areas in ways which will positively influence the most vulnerable areas in our community, we can make a difference and lessen the burden of impact on our citizens, government, and nature itself. The Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan promotes programs and projects that partner with communities, building a foundation of resilience before, during, and after disasters. The planning partnership made up of Mason County and local governments worked together to create this Mason County 2023 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update not only to fulfill the DMA requirements for all fully participating partners, but also to identify positive measures which, when implemented, will reduce the negative impact of disaster incidents. PLAN UPDATE Federal regulations require hazard mitigation plans include a system for monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the document. The update provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. INITIAL RESPONSE TO DMA IN MASON COUNTY The inevitability of natural hazards and the growing population and activities within the planning region created a need to develop information, concepts, strategies, and a coordination of resources to increase public awareness of the hazards of concern and the risk associated with those hazards. In an effort to reduce the impact of the hazards and assist in protecting life, property and the economy, Mason County leadership determined that it was in the best interests of its citizenry to develop the County’s first Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004, with updates occurring regularly as required since that time. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xii September 2023 These plans have also provided information for several other efforts throughout the county, including land use development and zoning regulations, hazard-specific plans, and various other emergency management plans, such as the County’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which helps guide all disaster response countywide. Since completion of the various editions, new technologies, information and increased awareness have brought about a wealth of information to enhance the validity of the initial plan, providing the opportunity, through development of the 2023 update to the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, to continue to increase the resilience of the planning region as a whole. THE 2023 MASON COUNTY PLAN UPDATE —WHAT HAS CHANGED? Mason County is using the five-year update process to enhance the existing plan based on availability of new hazard data, including more detailed analysis of existing hazards of concern, and a better understanding of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) guidance to develop mitigation plans, which was revised in 2021 and became effective April 19, 2023. The following changes have been incorporated in the 2023 plan: • The layout of the plan varies somewhat in formatting, but maintains the two-volume approach. Volume 1 includes general planning information and hazard profile data which is consistent with all entities involved, as well as the County-specific data. Volume 2 includes each jurisdiction’s separate annex, as well as the linkage procedure for partners wishing to join at a later date. • Hazards of concern were modified slightly for this 2023 update, with climate change removed as a stand-alone hazard, and rather identified as additional impact within each hazard impacted by climate change. • Dam inundation data was enhanced to the degree possible based on available data provided by the dam owners; however, inundation data was identified as confidential by some owners. Data which was available was included. • Wildfire profile was enhanced due to the increase in wildfire occurrences within Mason County since completion of the last plan, and the availability of updated LandFIRE and WA DNR data. • Severe Weather was again expanded to include additional impacts experienced from the severe heat events (2021 and 2022) and increased snow levels and occurrences since the last plan’s completion. • Tsunami was again discussed, but based on the limited impact, the Planning Team again determined it would not include Tsunami during this update. As with the 2018 plan, the Planning Team elected to again review the option to include it in future updates. • Volcano was again reviewed, but also tabled during this update process due to limited historic impact. • The risk assessment was expanded to use additional methodologies and new studies to define risk and determine vulnerability. This edition is again based on analysis using both GIS and Hazus, and focuses on determining impacts on people, property, environment, and the economy. This edition also utilizes FEMA’s 2017 Risk Map data. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xiii September 2023 • Critical infrastructure data was expanded and updated to include new structures within the planning area as identified throughout the process to ensure community lifelines were included to the extent possible. • The risk assessment has been prepared to better support future grant applications by providing risk and vulnerability information that will directly support the measurement of “cost-effectiveness” required under FEMA mitigation grant programs. • The method of risk ranking was expanded slightly, but is still based on a Calculated Priority Risk Index Ranking. While similar in nature, this edition includes an expanded social vulnerability assessment. • The risk assessment remains consistent, breaking down the areas of impact by planning partnership as appropriate, to include an analysis of the unincorporated areas of the County, and further by each planning partner involved. This will allow planning partners to annually review and determine accuracy of the greatest hazards of concern based on their impact, versus the entire planning area. This will also allow planning partners the ability to identify new mitigation strategies as various grant opportunities become available. • All charts, graphs and maps have been updated with the most current data. In those cases where data was no longer available and the previous graphic was utilized, it was so noted. • All Census and Census-related data has been updated with the most current data available. • Goals and objectives were reviewed and updated appropriately with only slight modifications. The Planning Team felt they remained consistent with the intent of the County and its planning partnership with respect to its mitigation strategy. • Additional analysis was completed concerning the impact of land use development trends on the hazards of concern. • Community Lifelines were discussed and the concept integrated in the on-going effort to support basic services on which a community relies. New information was added with respect to FEMA’s development (and definition) of the lifelines, as well as an additional analysis indicating potential positive impact from the County’s identified mitigation action items as they relate to the specific identified lifeline. • Strategies from the 2018 edition were updated, and new strategies identified. The method of prioritizing strategies was maintained, including a form of benefit cost analysis. • Additional outreach was conducted by the County’s Project Manager to expand the number of planning partners, including outreach to the hospital, transit, school districts, Red Cross, and additional fire agencies. One previous planning partner (Transit Authority) was lost this update cycle; one new fire district was added. The County Project Manager also conducted outreach to gain greater participation from County Departments, including one-on-one meetings, but due to limited staffing throughout the County, only a limited number of new departments participated. Those departments are identified in Chapter 2. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xiv September 2023 • The plan maintenance strategy was reviewed. Due to COVID and other public health- related issues, in-person public outreach since completion of the last plan was restricted or reduced, with actual in person meetings not occurring for much of the time. While the “Annual Report Card” developed for use with the 2018 plan was not completed, the Planning Partnership did have discussions at various times through their LEPC meetings concerning the hazards of concern, potential new strategies, and the impact of the hazards during events. THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP The planning partnership assembled for this plan consists of Mason County, the City of Shelton, PUDs 1 and 3, Central Mason Fire and Emergency Services, Mason County Fire District #4, and Fire District 16, all defined as “local governments” under the Disaster Mitigation Act. Of these six planning partners, all completed the required phases of this plan’s development. Jurisdictional annexes for those partners are included in Volume 2 of the plan. Jurisdictions not covered by this process can link to this plan at a future date by following the linkage procedures identified in Volume 2 of this plan. One new planning partner was added for this 2023 update – Mason County Fire District #4; one planning partner did not participate for this update cycle, and did not complete an annex update – Mason County Transit Authority. PLAN DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY Update of the Mason County hazard mitigation plan included seven phases: • Phase 1, Organize resources—–Under this phase, grant funding was secured to fund the effort, the planning partnership was formed, and other stakeholders were assembled to oversee development of the plan. Also under this phase were coordination with local, state, and federal agencies and a comprehensive review of existing programs that may support or enhance hazard mitigation. • Phase 2, Assess risk—Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. Phase 2 occurred simultaneously with Phase 1, with the two efforts using information generated by one another. This process focuses on the following parameters: – Identification of new hazards and updating hazard profiles – The impact of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets – Vulnerability identification – Estimates of the cost of damage or costs that can be avoided through mitigation. Phase 3, Involve the public—Under this phase, a public involvement strategy was developed that used multiple media sources to give the public multiple opportunities to provide comment on the plan. The strategy focused on three primary objectives: – Assess the public’s perception of risk. – Assess the public’s perception of vulnerability to those risks. – Identify mitigation strategies that will be supported by the public. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xv September 2023 • Phase 4, Identify goals, objectives, and actions—Under this phase, the goals and objectives were reviewed and updated, as well as a range of potential mitigation actions for each natural hazard identified. A “mitigation catalog” was used by each planning partner to guide the selection of recommended mitigation initiatives to reduce the effects of hazards on new development and existing inventory and infrastructure. A process similar to the one created for the last edition was utilized for prioritizing, implementing, and administering action items based in part on a review of project benefits versus project costs. • Phase 5, Develop a plan maintenance strategy—Under this phase, a strategy for long- term mitigation plan maintenance was created, with the following components: – A method for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan on a five-year cycle – A protocol for a progress report to be completed annually on the plan’s accomplishments – A process for incorporating requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms – Ongoing public participation in the mitigation plan maintenance process – “Linkage procedures” that address potential changes in the planning partnership. • Phase 6, Develop the plan—The internal planning group for this effort assembled key information into a document to meet DMA requirements. The document was produced in two volumes: Volume 1 including all information that applies to the entire planning area, serving as the base plan and the County’s annex ; and Volume 2, including jurisdiction- specific information. • Phase 7, Implement and adopt the plan—Once pre-adoption approval has been granted by the Washington Emergency Management Division and FEMA, the final adoption phase will begin. Each planning partner will be required to adopt the plan according to its own protocols. MITIGATION GOALS The 2018 goals were reviewed and confirmed for the 2023 update during the initial kick-off meeting. Objectives developed in 2018 were also reviewed and confirmed for the current update. The goals and objectives were utilized to allow further assessment of mitigation strategies. Strategies were assessed to determine association with several general categories related not only to emergency management as a whole, but also inclusive of the seven Community Lifelines (Safety and Security; Food, Water, Shelter; Health and Medical; Energy; Communications; Transportation; and Hazardous Materials, and the Community Rating System, as follows: • Prevention • Public Information and Education • Property Protection • Emergency Services / Response • Natural resources • Structural projects • Recovery Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xvi September 2023 PROGRESS REPORT OF 201 8 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Since the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was approved, the County and its planning partners have completed many initiatives identified throughout this document in an attempt to serve the population and increase economic growth throughout the planning area. Chapter 12 identifies the current status of the strategies contained in the previous plan. The 2018 plan maintenance strategy identified an annual meeting with all planning team members as its method of tracking project completion and identification of hazard impact. Such meetings did not occur due to staffing levels and workloads, as well as COVID response and operations. The Planning Team, however, does feel that such maintenance and report strategy remains effective as it relates to them, and has developed a similar process for their use as discussed in Plan Maintenance portion of this document. The County’s Emergency Management Coordinator will continue to work with the Planning Team in the continued quest to reduce the risk and vulnerability to the County and its residents. The Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) will also be utilized, as the majority of all Planning Team Members are also part of the LEPC. In addition to implementation of some of the 2018 mitigation strategies, the Planning Partnership has developed a number of different efforts which have enhanced the County’s ability to support mitigation-friendly infrastructure development. During development of these various planning efforts, data from the previous Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) were integrated to the greatest extent possible, with the HMP data serving as a starting point. A detailed list of the various efforts which support mitigation is contained within the Capability Matrix (Chapter 13). Occurring simultaneously with this update, the County is also in the process of updating its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and data from this effort will be utilized to support that update as well. Integrating mitigation efforts into the daily practices has become commonplace to a large extent. A number of Departments’ and Agencies’ daily practices support mitigation, including the Planning Departments, Natural Resources Departments, PUDs, etc.. These entities, as well as others, have continued to incorporate mitigation activities into various day-to-day functions. A few examples of those efforts include: ➢ Land use development projects emphasizing smart planning by utilizing the risk data to assist in selecting site locations outside of high hazard areas; ➢ Maintaining and enhancing natural habitats to create space which reduces the negative impact of flooding; ➢ Utilizing building materials and standards based on recommended codes and their ability to reduce risk; ➢ Implementing program management for shoreline management, wildlife and cultural resource protection, and air and water quality monitoring; ➢ Overall assessment of the communities’ usage of new construction to determine if multiple purposes exist, which, when fully operational, can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., a shelter or community resilience center which can also serve as a gym); and ➢ During planning stages, projected development includes prioritizing mitigation efforts based on impact (positive and negative), such as the project’s proximity to the 100- and 500-year floodplain and landslide risk, among others. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Executive Summary Bridgeview Consulting xvii September 2023 The updated version of the hazard mitigation action plan is a key element of this plan. For the purpose of this document, mitigation action items are defined as: activities designed to reduce or eliminate the long-term losses resulting from the impacts of natural hazards of concern. It is through the implementation of the action plan that the County and its Planning Partners can strive to become disaster-resilient through sustainable hazard mitigation. Although one of the driving influences for preparing this plan was grant funding eligibility, that is not the focus of this plan. It was important to the Planning Partners that they examine initiatives that would work through all phases of emergency management and that contribute to, rather than remove from, the environment. It is significant that the mitigation efforts include mainstreaming adaptive, ‘no-regrets’ strategies which improve the ability to live with the hazards of concern. As such, some of the initiatives outlined in this plan are not grant-eligible, and grant eligibility was not the focus of the selection. Rather, the focus was the initiatives’ effectiveness in achieving the goals of the plan and whether they are within each entities’ capabilities, while also supporting FEMA’s Community Lifelines and the established Core Capabilities. As established, the lifelines enable the continuous operation of critical government and business functions to help ensure human health and safety, and economic security of the community. This planning process resulted in the identification of mitigation actions to be targeted for implementation both collectively, and by individual planning partners. Individual initiatives and their priorities can be found in Volume 2 of this plan. Those countywide initiatives benefiting the whole partnership which will be implemented by pooling resources based on capability are identified in Chapter 12. CONCLUSION Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will take time and resources. The measure of the plan’s success will be the coordination and pooling of resources within the planning partnership. Keeping this coordination and communication intact will be the key to successful implementation of the plan. Teaming together to seek financial assistance at the s tate and federal level will be a priority to initiate projects that are dependent on alternative funding sources. These funding sources may be non-traditional sources, and include partnering with private industry where feasible. This plan was built upon the effective leadership of a multi-disciplined planning team and a process that relied heavily on public input and support. The plan will succeed for the same reasons. Each planning partner and their representative jurisdiction are commended for their level of effort and determination in completing this 2023 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Bridgeview Consulting 1-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Hazard mitigation is defined as the use of long- and short-term strategies to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. It involves strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners; business and industry; and local, state, and federal government. 1.1 AUTHORITY The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) (Public Law 106-390) required state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Prior to 2000, federal disaster funding focused on disaster relief and recovery, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning. The DMA increased the emphasis on planning for disasters before they occur. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Act) by repealing and replacing sections which emphasized the need for state and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The DMA encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre -disaster planning, and it promotes sustainability for disaster resistance. Sustainable hazard mitigation includes the sound management of natural resources and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects. The Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update has been developed pursuant to the requirements of 44 CFR 201.6. The plan meets FEMA’s guidance for multi-jurisdictional mitigation planning. 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many groups and individuals have contributed to development of the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The Mason County Division of Emergency Management provided support for all aspects of plan development. Mason County GIS also provided assistance by providing building stock data and information. The planning partners met on a regular basis to guide the project, identify the hazards most threatening Countywide, develop and prioritize mitigation projects, review draft deliverables, and facilitate public outreach efforts. Local communities participated in the planning process by facilitating (and attending as local government policies allowed) public meetings and contributed to plan development by reviewing and commenting on the draft plan. Several planning partners provided assistance and guidance to support the efforts of smaller entities by providing data and information to help develop specific annex documents. Citizens’ participation was exceptionally good during the plan’s development, with citizens attending various public outreach sessions and providing invaluable information with Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Introduction Bridgeview Consulting 1-2 September 2023 respect to concerns, strategy ideas, and hazard information. Input was incorporated as appropriate throughout the document. 1.3 PURPOSE OF PLANNING The local mitigation plan is the representation of a jurisdiction’s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Local plans also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. This hazard mitigation plan identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk. One benefit of completing a hazard mitigation plan which includes all local municipalities and special purpose districts is cost-savings for citizens. A multi-jurisdictional planning effort provides the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. FEMA encourages multi-jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Mason County. It was developed to enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation, meeting the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements. Developing a multi-jurisdiction plan into this type of document creates a single planning document that integrates all planning partners into a framework that supports partnerships within the county and puts all partners on the same planning cycle for future updates. It also allows coordination between existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented. All citizens and businesses of Mason County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan. When implemented, the plan helps reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the county. It provides a viable planning framework for all known natural hazards that may impact the county. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders in the county helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable countywide, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships. 1.4 PLAN ADOPTION 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) requires documentation that a hazard mitigation plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting federal approval of the plan. For multi- jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan will be submitted for a pre-adoption review to the Washington State Division of Emergency Management and FEMA prior to adoption. Once pre-adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. All partners understand that DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting the plan can be obtained from each planning partner. The FEMA approval letter can be found in Appendix B of this volume. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Introduction Bridgeview Consulting 1-3 September 2023 1.5 SCOPE AND PLAN ORGANIZATION The process followed to update the 2023 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan included the following: • Review and prioritize disaster events that are most probable and destructive. • Update and identify new critical facilities. • Review and update areas within the community that are most vulnerable. • Review (and update as appropriate) goals for reducing the effects of a disaster event. • Review old and identify new projects to be implemented for each goal. • Review procedures for monitoring progress and updating future hazard mitigation plans. • Review the draft hazard mitigation plan. • Adopt the updated hazard mitigation plan. This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction-specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole planning area: • Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, countywide hazard risk assessment, countywide mitigation initiatives, and a plan maintenance strategy. Volume 1 serves as the Base Plan, and represents the County’s portion of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements, assimilated into specific annexes for each participating jurisdiction. Volume 2 also includes a description of the participation requirements for planning partners. Volume 2 also includes “linkage” procedures for eligible jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the future, as well as contact information to obtain the annex template and instructions. All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 and the associated appendices in their entirety, as well as each partner’s jurisdiction-specific annex contained in Volume 2. The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the main content of the plan: • Appendix A—A glossary of acronyms and definitions; • Appendix B—Final FEMA Plan Approval (after adoption by all planning partners); and • Appendix C—A template for progress reports to be completed as this plan is implemented. Bridgeview Consulting 2-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS To develop the Mason County hazard mitigation plan, the County applied the following primary objectives: • Secure grant funding • Form an internal planning group • Establish a planning partnership • Coordinate with individual and agency stakeholders • Review existing plans and studies • Engage the public: – Conduct a hazard survey – Hold public meetings (as public policy allowed due to COVID restrictions and concerns) – Review the draft hazard mitigation plan. These objectives are discussed in the following sections. 2.1 SECURE GRANT FUNDING This planning effort was supplemented by a Hazard Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant from FEMA. Mason County was the applicant agent for the grant. The grant was applied for originally in 2021, and funding was appropriated in 2022. It covered 90 percent of the cost for development of this plan; the County and its planning partners covered 5 percent of the cost through in-kind contributions, and the state of Washington provided the remaining 5 percent balance. 2.2 INTERNAL PLANNING GROUP FORMATION Mason County hired Bridgeview Consulting, LLC to assist with development and implementation of the plan. The Bridgeview Consulting project manager assumed the role of the lead planner, reporting directly to a County-designated project manager. An internal planning group was formed to lead the planning effort, made up of the following members: • Tammi Wright, Mason County Project Manager • John Taylor, Mason County Emergency Management Manager • Robert Burbridge, Mason County Emergency Management Exercise and Training Coordinator • Beverly O’Dea, Bridgeview Consulting (Lead Project Planner) Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-2 September 2023 2.3 PLANNING PARTNERSHIP A primary focus of this effort was to re-engage the planning partnership from the 2018 plan, and to open this process to eligible local governments. Mason County opened this planning effort to those eligible entities within the county which expressed an interest in participating in the planning process. Emergency Management personnel made presentations at various meetings beginning January 2022, soliciting letters of intent to participate to support the County’s grant application. The County received letters of intent to participate by several of the planning partners. In addition to a Press Release announcing the County’s initiation of the planning effort, an email was distributed inviting participation. The email was accompanied with a letter detailing the process which would be followed to allow planning partners with a knowledge base on which to form their decision of whether or not to participate. Each jurisdiction wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide an executed Letter of Intent to Participate. That letter designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction and confirmed the jurisdiction’s commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. For those jurisdictions invited but who could not participate, linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2) for any jurisdiction or special purpose district wishing to join the Mason County plan in the future. This process is the same process utilized for the 2018 plan, and carried forward to the 2023 update. Responsibilities of the planning partners included participating in meetings to discuss plan development, providing data for analysis in the risk assessment, participating in public meetings, providing input and feedback on mitigation strategies, developing an annex document, reviewing the draft plan document, and supporting the plan throughout the adoption process. The initial kickoff planning workshop took place on December 13, 2022. Key workshop objectives were as follows: • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Describe the reasons for a plan. • Outline the County work plan. • Outline and adopt planning partner expectations necessary to establish an annex to the County’s Plan. • Confirm hazards of concern. • Review and update, as appropriate, the Goals and Objectives. • Establish the Planning Partnership’s definition of Critical Facilities. • Establish a Public Outreach Strategy for use during this update cycle. During the initial workshop, the planning partners also confirmed meeting guidelines, which identified staffing, elected a chairperson to act as spokesperson for the planning effort, identified a minimum attendance by planning team members to gain an active level of participation, established the decision-making method (quorum of membership or majority rule), identified the concept of alternative representatives for planning team members unable to attend, and identified the method in which the public would address the planning team during meetings. Specific guidelines established are available upon request to the Mason County Emergency Management Division. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-3 September 2023 During the initial workshop meeting, John Taylor was elected Chairperson of the planning team, and the team determined that decisions would be made based on the majority of members in attendance. Various meetings were held with the planning partners while the plan was being drafted. In advance of each meeting, an agenda and materials to be discussed (i.e. example mitigation strategies, examples of projects eligible for FEMA funding, etc.) were sent to meeting participants. All members issuing letters of intent were engaged as a planning partner throughout this process. 2.4 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration and support among diverse parties whose interests can be affected by hazard losses. 44 CFR requires that opportunities for involvement in the planning process be provided to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests (Section 201(6)(b)(2)). Stakeholders which were identified and invited to participate in this effort include: • County stakeholders included Board of County Commissioners, emergency managers, the floodplain coordinator, the Community Development Director, the GIS Department, the Public Administrator, Search and Rescue, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the Health Department, 911 dispatch, and the Sheriff’s Office. Their participation included providing data, attending public meetings, utilizing their established meetings as a venue to discuss the mitigation planning process, and reviewing the draft hazard mitigation plan. • Stakeholders from throughout the County were invited, as well as members of the Skokomish and Squaxin Tribes. Invitations were also distributed to members of various other county departments, police and fire chiefs, representatives from the local PUDs, hospital, and port districts, Red Cross, and others. When engaged, their participation included providing data, meeting attendance, and review of the draft hazard mitigation plan. • Washington State stakeholders included representatives from the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology, Department of Corrections, and Department of Transportation, and the State Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Officer, among others. Their participation included providing data, attending meetings, grant coordination and oversight, and reviewing the draft hazard mitigation plan. • Federal agency stakeholders and information included the FEMA Region X, National Weather Service (NWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies provided information on plan development, invited to public meetings, and were invited to review the draft hazard mitigation plan. • Non-government stakeholders included the American Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce, among others. The County’s Emergency Management email distribution list was utilized, which reaches in excess of 100 individuals from various departments and organizations throughout the region, including the LEPC. The County elected to utilize the LEPC due to its reach to many different Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-4 September 2023 disciplines supporting emergency management, and on which the County or the entity relies during disaster incidents. Many of these entities provided information for plan development, attended the public meetings, and/or reviewed the draft hazard mitigation plan update. Table 2-1 lists planning team members involved in the update. Each of the entities which completed an annex also established internal planning teams. Those team members are referenced in their respective annex documents. Table 2-2 identifies the various stakeholders who were contacted and asked to participate in the plan update. In some instances, while requested to participate, not all did. The list also identifies agencies from which data was captured. Those that participated are highlighted in gray. Many of the individuals in Table 2-2 are LEPC members and during the LEPC meetings, received notices, plan briefings, information on the hazard mitigation planning process, and the risk assessment findings, as well as a request to take the County’s survey. Most were invited to participate in the various plan reviews as indicated. In some instances, the stakeholders were also invited to prepare an annex template, as identified. All LEPC meetings are regularly advertised and open to the public, and were utilized to ensure information exchange occurred. Table 2-1 Planning Team Membership and Tasks Name and Jurisdiction Tasks John Taylor Chair of Planning Team Emergency Management Manager Mason County Division of Emergency Management Meeting attendance; provided briefings to council members and department heads on process and events occurring; provided information on historic county information; assisted with development of planning team; conducted plan reviews at various stages; assisted with grant monitoring oversight. Tammi Wright Project Manager and Emergency Management Coordinator Mason County Division of Emergency Management Project manager for event; led effort for county. Assisted with data capture from various departments; assisted with planning team development; coordinated Letters of Intent, grant application, grant monitoring and submissions; prepared quarterly reports; provided data and information as needed; coordinated and attended meetings with various departments for information gathering; conducted plan review at various stages; led strategy update from 2018 strategies; conducted department level outreach for 2023 strategy development; assisted with public outreach efforts, posting on FB, website, email distributions, posting of maps at Public Works, assimilation of outreach data for presentation to public; attended all meetings and completed all reviews; conducted briefings to public officials and department heads. Robert Burbridge Exercise and Training Coordinator Mason County Division of Emergency Management Attendance at all planning team meetings; provided input and information into the county; assisted with identification of planning team members; led public outreach efforts to several community groups throughout the process, including announcing project at the beginning of the process, distribution of survey (hard copies and flyers with QR and survey link), provided risk information at various meetings; facilitated the capturing data and comments as appropriate at those meetings for planning team members’ review, announced availability of risk assessment data at public meetings Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-5 September 2023 Table 2-1 Planning Team Membership and Tasks Name and Jurisdiction Tasks providing website information and providing hard copy for citizens’ review; completed review of the various drafts of the plan. Richard Diaz, Senior GIS Coordinator Mason County Planning rdiaz@masoncountywa.gov 360.427.9670 ext. 526 Provided GIS layers at various stages; provided hazard data as available; provided land use information; assisted with the distribution of maps and information for the risk assessment. Kell Rowen, Director Community Development KRowen@masoncountywa.gov> O: (360) 427-9670 ext. 286 C: (360) 463-3035 Attended meetings with planning team members; provided information on available risk data; assisted with review of land use authority in county and application and association of the mitigation plan into those planning mechanism; provided general information and overview/insight; provided building count data, permitting data, buildable lands data, serves as County Director in update of the County’s land use plan to ensure coordination of data between both plans. Conducted reviews of draft and final plans. Loretta Swanson Director, Mason County Public Works Assisted with updating of data in plan with respect to impact and mitigation efforts completed since last plan; provided assistance with strategy development; provided information on additional mitigation projects completed since the 2018 plan was completed, and conducted plan reviews at various stages. Richard Dickinson, Deputy Director, Mason County Public Works Assisted with updating of data in plan with respect to impact and mitigation efforts completed since last plan; provided assistance with strategy development; conducted plan reviews at various stages. Mike Collins, PE Mason County Public Works Assisted with updating of data in plan with respect to impact and mitigation efforts completed since last plan; provided assistance with strategy development; conducted plan reviews at various stages. Mason County Public Health Dave Windom, Director Jacob Ritter, PH Epidemiologist Members of LEPC. Attended meetings, receiving information on planning process; risk assessment, and draft plan. Invited to participate in plan update by providing relevant information. Invited to review risk assessment and draft plans. Chief Greg Yates Central Mason Fire & EMS Served as Planning Partner Lead for Central Mason Fire & EMS. Attended meetings; provided input and information into overall plan; completed annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; assisted with presentation of plan prior to adoption. Jeff Snyder (Alternate) Central Mason Fire & EMS Served as Planning Partner Alternate Lead for Central Mason Fire & EMS and as planning team member for Central Mason. Attended meetings; provided input and information into overall plan; assisted with completion of annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; assisted with presentation of plan prior to adoption. KC Whitehouse (Alternate) Central Mason Fire & EMS Served as Planning Partner Alternate Lead for Central Mason Fire & EMS and as planning team member for Central Mason. Attended meetings; heavily involved in providing input and information into overall plan; provided historic wildfire data for county; assisted with completion of annex template; conducted risk assessment review Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-6 September 2023 Table 2-1 Planning Team Membership and Tasks Name and Jurisdiction Tasks and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; assisted with presentation of plan prior to adoption. Chief Carole Beason (Police Chief and Emergency Manager) City of Shelton Served as Planning Partner Lead for the City of Shelton. Attended meetings; provided input and information into overall plan; completed annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; provided presentations during planning process to during City Council Meetings; led presentation of Draft plan prior to adoption. Capt. Chris Kostad (Police) (Alternate) City of Shelton Served as Planning Partner Alternate Lead for the City of Shelton and planning team member for the City. Attended meetings in Chief’s place; provided input and information into overall plan; assisted with completion of annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed. Kristin Masteller, General Manager PUD No. 1 Served as Planning Partner Lead for the PUD 1; Attended meetings and led internal planning group for PUD; provided input and information into overall plan, including historic data on power outages; facilitated the updating of the critical facilities list for the PUD (significant enhancement); led completion of PUD’s annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; provided presentations during planning process during Board Meetings; led presentation of Draft plan prior to adoption; facilitated posting of data and information on FB and on PUD’s website. James Reyes, Engineering Manager PUD 1 Served as alternate point of contact for all phases of plan development. Provided general information; conducted review of plan at various stages. Katie Arnold, District Treasurer and Director of Business Services, PUD 1 Served as planning team member for PUD 1; assisted with data capture for base plan regarding power outages and impact/loss data; conducted review of draft plan and annex template; assisted with completion of risk assessment process; coordinated distribution of public information on PUD’s FB and website. Ali Burgess, PUD 3, Safety & Environmental Programs Coordinator Served as Planning Partner Lead for the PUD 3; Attended meetings and led internal planning group for PUD 3; provided input and information into overall plan; facilitated the updating of the critical facilities list for the PUD; led completion of PUD’s annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; provided presentations during planning process during Board Meetings; led presentation of Draft plan prior to adoption; facilitated posting of data and information on FB and on PUD’s website. Barbara Adkins PUD 3, Grant Writer Provided input and information to overall plan for PUD 3; attended meetings; assisted with update to critical facilities list; assisted with risk assessment and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews during plan completion. Chris Miller, PUD 3 Operations Manager Provided information on mutual aid, safety measures and regional prioritization of actions. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-7 September 2023 Table 2-1 Planning Team Membership and Tasks Name and Jurisdiction Tasks Lynn Eaton PUD 3, Communications & Government Relations Manager Provided input and information to overall plan for PUD 3; attended meetings; assisted with update to critical facilities list; assisted with risk assessment and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews during plan completion. Stephanie Schuffenhauer PUD 3, Business Analyst Provided input and information to overall plan for PUD 3; attended meetings; assisted with update to critical facilities list; assisted with risk assessment and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews during plan completion. Chief Matthew Welander West Mason Fire Served as Planning Partner Lead for West Mason Fire. Attended meetings; provided input and information into overall plan; completed annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; assisted with presentation of plan prior to adoption. Assisted other fire agencies during annex development, providing examples of the type of data needed as well as sources to capture data. Greg Seals (Alternate) West Mason Fire (Fire District #16) Served as Planning Partner Alternate for West Mason Fire. Attended meetings as available; provided input and information into overall plan; assisted with completion of annex template; reviewed risk assessment and hazard ranking data; conducted various reviews of plan as completed Chief Gregory Rudolph Mason County Fire District #4 As a new planning partner to the 2023 Update, Chief Rudolph served as Planning Partner Lead for Mason County Fire District #4. Attended meetings; provided input and information into overall plan; completed annex template; conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews of plan as completed; assisted with presentation of plan prior to adoption. Beverly O’Dea, Consultant/Lead Planner Bridgeview Consulting, LLC bevodea@bridgeviewconsulting.org (253) 301-1330 Project Manager and Author of Plan. Facilitated all meetings; captured data and information for all elements of the plan; prepared public review data for presentation of risk assessment findings; prepared drafts of plan for citizen review; completed survey analysis, etc. Cathy Walker, GIS Analyst Bridgeview Consulting, LLC (253) 301-1330 Conducted GIS and Hazus functions; captured data necessary to conduct risk assessment; developed maps and updated CIKR list with hazard impact data. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-8 September 2023 Table 2-2 Stakeholders and Areas of Participation Stakeholders Name Data/Information Provided or Invited to Participate US Forest Service Wildfire Data LandFire Data FEMA Region X Ted Perkins Josha Crowley, PE Starr II – Region 10 Service Center Marshall Rivers FEMA Risk Analyst Flood hazard information Risk Report FEMA Risk Report Data and Depth Grid Data (Sea Level Rise) Floodplain Specialist Hannah Cleverly Nick Falley Grays Harbor County Emergency Management THLS Region 3 Planning Team Member – received updates and notice of various drafts for review. No comments received with respect to the HMP. Brandon Cheney (partial) Sarah Spearman Thurston County Emergency Management THLS Region 3 Planning Team Member – received updates and notice of various draft reviews. No comments received. Comcast Gabriella Corchado LEPC Planning Team Member; attended meetings and briefings re: HMP update, risk data, and draft reviews. I-Fiber One (Broadcast Media) Jeff Chew LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and availability of draft plans for review. WSP Benjamin Lewis LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and draft plans. DiVita Kidus Legesse LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and availability of draft plans for review. Red Cross Larry Smith LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and draft plans. WA DNR Ana Barros DNR Dispatcher Landslide and Tsunami Data Wildfire Data Wildfire History WA DOE Diane Fowler, Community Right to Know Coordinator Reporting Hazmat sites in Mason County Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-9 September 2023 Table 2-2 Stakeholders and Areas of Participation Jerry Franklin, RiskMap Coordinator Provided Risk Map and Flood data WA DOT Lit Dudley, Emergency Manager LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and draft plans; Data for landslide hazard reduction and roadway projects. WA DOC Various LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and draft plans. NGLEP Adrian Anderson Energy Partner – Natural Gas Liquids ESD #113 Dan Beaudoin (ESD #113) Dana Rosenbauch (North Mason School) John Holbrook (Shelton School District) Matt Lowery Mary M. Knight School Invited to develop annex for each school district; LEPC Planning Team Members; received notices of availability of risk data and draft plans. Economic Development Council of Mason County Karin Leaf, Business Development Manager LEPC Planning Team Member; Information on County’s economic development WA EMD Kevin Zerbie, HM Strategist Tim Cook, SHMO NFIP Data; Plan Review, Grant Guidance/Coordination Skokomish Tribe Jackie Smith LEPC Planning Team Member Squaxin Tribe Kelly Guy Emergency Manager LEPC Planning Team Member; invited to participate in plan update (developing Tribal annex); attended meetings for plan update; received risk data; received notice of plan review. Lewis / Mason/ Thurston Area Agency on Aging (WA DSHS) Lisa Jolly LEPC Planning Team Member; WA DSHS Jemma Williamson LEPC Planning Team Member; received notices of availability of risk data and availability of draft plans for review. North West Health Care Response Network Maria Pede LEPC Planning Team Member; received briefings on plan status and update; requested to review and comment on plan Mason General Hospital Kim Cooper, RN, Infection Prevention Invited to develop annex; LEPC Planning Team Member; Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-10 September 2023 Table 2-2 Stakeholders and Areas of Participation Sabrina Nelson, RN, Supervisor, Trauma and Emergency received information on plan update; request to review and comment on plan USGS Earthquake Data 2.5 REVIEW OF PLANS AND STUDIES 44 CFR states that hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation as appropriate of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information (Section 201.6.b(3)). Laws and ordinances in effect in the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation initiatives are reviewed in Chapter 13. The list of references at the end of this volume presents sources used to capture information necessary to complete this planning effort. Plans, studies, and reports used for this process include, but are not limited to: • Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) • Mason County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) (2022) • Mason County Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan (1996, 2005, 2017, 2022) • Mason County Shoreline Management Plan (2021) • Mason County Emergency Action Plan for North Bay/Case Inlet Water Reclamation Facility Dam (2023) • Mason County Emergency Action Plan for Belfair Water Reclamation Facility Dam (2023) • Regional Catastrophic Plan • Flood Insurance Study; Mason County and Incorporated Areas (2017, 2019) • WRIA 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed Focus Sheet (2016) • WRIA 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed Plan (2006) • WRIA 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed Restoration and Enhancement (2022) • WRIA 16 Skokomish-Dosewallips Fact Sheet (2012) • WRIA 16 Watershed Management Plan (2006) • Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010, 2013, 2018) • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Landslide Reports (various) • Coastal erosion data (various) • Climate change data (various) • Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas • Washington State Department of Ecology Drought Studies/Data (various) • Washington Department of Ecology Hazardous Materials Annual Report for Mason County (2018, 2022) Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-11 September 2023 • FEMA Region X Risk Report (2017 – most recent). Data obtained from the plan and regulation review was incorporated into various sections of the hazard mitigation plan. The risk analysis beginning in Chapter 4 through Chapter 11 (hazard ranking) refer to plans and ordinances that affect the management of each hazard. Section 14.2 describes how mitigation can be implemented through existing programs. An assessment of all planning partners’ regulatory, technical, and financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation initiatives is presented in the jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2 and in Chapter 13. Many of these relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessment. 2.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the planning area’s needs are considered and addressed. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR Section 201.6(b), 201.6(c)(1)(i) and 201.6(c)(1)(ii)). The Planning Partners did conduct extensive outreach using different methods to increase engagement. This included utilizing existing meetings to gain greater involvement, holding web- based meetings, utilize websites and social media, and scheduling conference calls that allowed participation by agencies and individuals. Interviews with individuals and specialists from outside organizations identified common concerns related to natural and manmade hazards, and key long- and short-term activities to reduce risk. Interviews included public safety personnel, planning department personnel, natural resources personnel, cultural resource personnel, and representatives from other government agencies from surrounding jurisdictions. The public outreach strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements: • Include members of the public on the planning team. • Use a questionnaire to determine general perceptions of risk and support for hazard mitigation and to solicit direction on alternatives. The questionnaire was available to anyone wishing to respond via the website and was distributed by hard copy for those without computer access. Distribution of the email included employee lists, agency distribution lists, and notices through social media and website platforms maintained by various planning partners. • The County provided a news release to local papers and identified the survey on the hazard mitigation website (published December 15, 2022 in the Mason County Journal). Several Planning Team Members throughout the County also posted the link to the survey and press release on their various Facebook and Twitter accounts (PUDs 1 and 3). • Attempt to reach as many citizens as possible using multiple formats. This is important because of the somewhat geographically remote areas in the county. • Identify and involve planning area stakeholders. • Include safety fairs from the various planning partners and utilize existing email distribution lists to announce planning milestones. Some of the outreach sessions and planning milestones are identified in Table 2-3. This list is not all-inclusive, but rather demonstrative of the various efforts of the planning team. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-12 September 2023 2.6.1 News Releases A news release was published on December 15, 2022 to draw attention to the County’s update process and the survey (see Figure 2-1). The County published a separate news release concerning an invitation to the general public to learn about emergency management as a whole, including presentation of risk data and hazard maps. When the draft plan was available for public review, notice was published in an effort to draw in as many comments as possible. 2.6.2 Internet At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan development milestones and to solicit input. The plan was provided via a file- transfer site, which allowed for the plan downloading for review. The County intends to keep a website active after the plan’s completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates. The County’s website address was publicized in all press releases, mailings, questionnaires, and public meetings. Information on the plan development process, the planning team, the questionnaire, and phased drafts of the plan was made available to the public on the site throughout the process. Hazard maps were published on this site, and were available for download. The County also utilized its Facebook page to distribute information. Review of Census data indicates that of the population within Mason County, 93% owned a computer, with approximately 90% having broadband internet subscriptions, making the use of the computer and internet a viable option for public outreach. 2.6.3 Plan Development Milestones Several public meetings and events which were open to the public were held during this effort. All planning meetings were also open to the public, and citizens did attend, providing information and input. The Planning Team also utilized its local LEPC as a planning resource. Once completed, the hazard maps were presented and made available for review at meetings, posted in public buildings, made available via the County’s webpage, and posted on the County’s Emergency Management Facebook page, which has in excess of 7,7000 followers. Email notifications and press releases were distributed at various stages announcing the availability of the information, as well as distributed via various social media tools. Each citizen attending meetings or outreach efforts were also asked to complete a questionnaire, and each was given an opportunity to provide written comments to Planning Team members. The risk maps were also posted to the County’s website beginning April 20, 2023, with blast email distributions made to over 400 county residents and employees, as well as on Facebook. Figure 2-2 is an illustration of the County’s Hazard Mitigation Website on which the risk maps were posted for viewing by citizens once they were completed. The county intends to maintain the maps on its Figure 2-1 December 2022 Press Release – Mason County Journal Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-13 September 2023 website once this planning process is completed. Figure 2-3 illustrates the initial Facebook posting by the County, while Figure 2-4 illustrates the same for PUD 1. Figure 2-5 announced the availability of the updated risk maps and hazard profiles, and illustrates over 7,700 followers on the site. Draft Plan Review Once the draft plan was completed, the public was invited to provide comments on the hazard mitigation plan. The final public review period began May 15, 2023 lasting through May 30, 2023. The County and its planning partners completed the following outreach activities: – During the May 20, 2023 Commissioner’s Meeting, Emergency Management Director John Taylor provided a briefing on the plan status and information on the plan. He further announced that the draft plan was available for review, and citizens were asked to review the draft plan and provide comments (email addresses and phone numbers provided for points of contact for any comments). The meetings are also recorded for later viewing. No public comments were received (beyond acknowledgement and thanks for project completion). – A News Release was issued by the County to customary local medica sources, announcing the plans’ availability. The News Release was also posted at County facilities. All of the planning partners also posted the News Release on their respective websites. LEPC distribution list was utilized announcing plan availability on two separate occasions, which includes all stakeholders invited to participate, as well as local citizens in the area. – The draft plan was posted on the project website and stakeholders were notified through press releases and e-mail messages of its availability, including Twitter and Facebook (reaching several thousand citizens). – All entities completing an annex template made presentations at their various councils, boards and/or commissioners’ meetings (which are all open to the public), providing notification of the plan’s availability for review. – Each planning partner held their own final public meeting, at which the plan was presented to their commission or council and the approving authority adopting the plan. Once the review period closed, final comments and edits were addressed, and the plan was submitted to FEMA for review. Once pre-adoption approval was received from FEMA, the plan was provided to the Mason County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the incorporated communities for adoption. After adoption, final copies of the plan were submitted to the Washington State Department of Emergency Management and FEMA. Appendix B includes the final FEMA approval letter for all planning partners submitting adoption resolutions. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 September 2023 The final plan will remain on the County’s website over the next five years. Future comments on the plan should be addressed to: Tammi Wright Mason County Division of Emergency Management Division 100 West Public Works Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Office: 360-427-9670 Extension 800 Figure 2-2 Website Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-15 September 2023 Figure 2-3 Facebook Post of the County’s Risk Assessment and Mitigation Planning Process Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-16 September 2023 Figure 2-4 Mason County PUD No. 1 Facebook Notification Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-17 September 2023 Figure 2-5 FB Posting Announcing Updated Risk Maps Available for Review Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events Date Jurisdiction Description 2022 Jan County County received notice of grant award, and began solicitation for vendor. March - November Countywide Countywide planning meetings (e.g., LEPC) utilized to invite participation in the planning process. These planning meetings are open to the public. Sept – Oct County County initiated consultant procurement through an open solicitation. Several responses and inquiries were received from vendors nationwide. Letters of Qualifications submitted by vendors were reviewed, screened, and rated. October County Commissioner Presentation was made identifying the Hazard Mitigation Project; vendor selection was identified and the Commissioners approved execution of contract with consultant Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-18 September 2023 Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events Date Jurisdiction Description November Countywide Begin formation of the planning team; core project management team identified to lead effort from various county departments; Consultant begins review of various documentation and assimilating data, reports, studies, etc. December Countywide Press release announcing the up-coming project, published in local newspaper. December Countywide Hazard mitigation plan website established; frequently asked questions posted; Press Release posted. December 13 Countywide Kick-off meeting held, including planning partners, volunteers, and citizens. Kick-Off Meeting audio recording posted and available December Countywide Press Release Published in Mason County Journal (December 15, 2022) 2023 January Countywide Survey deployed January FD#4 Flyer for survey was posted throughout the district’s stations, as well as on their social media platform. January 4, 18 CMFE Battalion Chief Whitehouse provided a briefing during the Commissioner’s meeting (publicly open and advertised meeting), during which he announced the kick-off of HMP project, providing an overview of the process and hazards to be addressed in the plan. During the meeting, BC Whitehouse also provided information concerning the available HM survey, providing the link and QR code, which was made available throughout the process. January Meeting (MC Planning Team / LEPC) Countywide Discussions and presentation on status of project to Mason County Planning Team / LEPC meeting, included representatives from various local communities, including the NW Health Care Coalition, WDOE Spill Response, the Shelton School District and Shelton School District Security personnel, several County Commissioners, and various other agencies and departments. A full list of participants is available from Mason County DEM. January Countywide Continued update of critical facilities list by planning team members. January 10 PUD 3 During the regularly scheduled Commissioners Meeting attended by citizens which are held twice monthly, PUD 3 planning team members provided information on the planning process, identifying the hazards of concern and potential impact, and began identifying an update on the previous strategies. The 2023 Annual Report data was determined to be an acceptable source of information with respect to growth within the service area, and providing asset valuation data, being the most recent report developed. January 11, 19 County Emergency Management made a presentation at the Kristmas Town Kiwanis Club, discussing the hazard mitigation planning process and the effects of disasters that occur with the younger populations. Public presentation at Alderbrook discussing hazards of concern, mitigation plan update process, availability of survey, and CERT training. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-19 September 2023 Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events Date Jurisdiction Description January 18 PUD Service Area Posted on Facebook PUD’s involvement in mitigation planning effort; provided link to survey February 1 CMFE Battalion Chief Whitehouse provided an overview of the HMP project during the Commissioner’s Meeting, which is regularly held and advertised and open to the public. Information exchange included identifying the hazards of concern and preliminary risk data, as well as inviting public participation and comments from citizens attending the meeting. February 16 County Planning Team Staff Made presentation at the Pioneer School Community Dinner concerning the hazards of concern, the planning process in general, introduced the concept of strategies, and invited participants to take the HMP survey. March County Planning Staff Various meetings for data capture. April 17 County Planning Team Meeting Risk ranking exercise completed and confirmed for county; strategy/action items reviewed and discussed; incorporation of risk data into other planning mechanisms discussed (e.g., land use, CEMP, evacuation plans, etc.) April 19 Planning Team Meeting Planning Team Meeting (general emergency management planning team) discussed plan status and review of hazard profiles. April 20 Countywide Risk Maps were made available via the County’s website, as well as posted throughout the lobby of the County’s Public Works Building, in which permitting and the County’s Planning Department exist. An email announcing the availability of maps for review and viewing was also distributed to over 400 individuals. April 22 Countywide Presentation of hazard information via notebooks and maps available at public opening of Mason County Dog Park was conducted by DEM’s public outreach coordinator. Available data also included printed version of the risk ranking process, hazard maps, and hard copies of the hazard profiles. No comments were received. April 25 PUD 1 During the regularly, advertised Board meeting, planning team members presented information on the hazard risks, including identification of structures at risk based on structure analysis. While that specific data was not made public (privileged), the maps were presented, and attendees were asked to provide any comments. The PUD also distributed links via social media re: the County’s website and the availability of the survey. May 2 CMFE During the regularly held Commissioner’s, planning team members presented information on the hazards identified during this process, and the associated risks. Attendees were asked to provide any comments. CMFE also distributed links via social media re: the County’s website and the availability of the survey and additional outreach and hazard data. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-20 September 2023 Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events Date Jurisdiction Description May 9 City of Shelton Council Meeting Planning team members presented an update to the planning process during the (recorded) City Council Meeting, inviting citizens to take the survey and review hazard maps posted in council chambers. Attendees were also directed to the County’s mitigation planning website for additional information; also advised attendees that the draft plan will be available for review on the County’s website within two weeks. May 9 PUD 3 Planning meeting with all planning team members to review and finalize draft of Annex. Draft plan posted on PUD’s website; Facebook announcement distributed to subscribed members in PUDs service area. Various Dates Countywide Planning Team and one-on-one meetings with all planners from all disciplines were presented with an update on the HMP, provided another overview of the risk maps, and provided the hazard ranking as defined by the County and planning partners. The strategies were also again identified and discussed with the intent of seeking additional input and data. Team members were asked to further disseminate information concerning the risk assessment and the availability of risk maps on the County’s website, as well as posted within county facilities. Strategy development Cheat Sheets and FEMA’s Mitigation Ideas handbooks were distributed for discussion and review to help identify potential strategies. May 9 PUD 3 PUD 3 made presentations to their respective Board concerning the HMP process, annex development, and risk associated with the hazards of concern. Specific critical facilities information is available to the Board Members via the 2023 Annual Report, but due to the nature of the structures (critical infrastructure) the list itself was not made public. It was determined that the PUD will post availability of the draft plan via posting to website and Facebook, and email notification to its staff and service providers of its availability, with additional announcements occurring at its next regularly scheduled meeting on May 23rd. May 10 Countywide Planning Team The Planning Team began review of the draft plan prior to public distribution. May 15 Mason County Press Release (Mason County Journal) announcing plan availability for review on Website and hard copy available for review at Mason County Emergency Management. Email notification to all County employees, countywide planning team email notice provided (+20 planning team members from outside agencies and jurisdictions), as well as LEPC distribution list. Planning team members distributed press release as well as posting on Facebook and Twitter accounts. Reminder emails also distributed. May 17 CMFE Chief Rudolph (FD #4) made presentations on the updated risk assessment at their Commissioners’ meetings, as well as announcing that the Draft HMP will be available for review and comment beginning the week of May 15th. These presentations are in addition to the public outreach at various community events conducted by the County’s Public Outreach Coordinator. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-21 September 2023 Table 2-3 Plan Milestones and Public Outreach Events Date Jurisdiction Description May 20 Countywide Public Outreach Coordinator Bob Burbridge provided an update on the status of the hazard mitigation plan, providing information on the hazards of concern, and advising citizens of the availability of the draft plan. Handouts of the risk maps and survey link were provided. May 23 Mason County - Board of County Commissioners Countywide Plan review before Commissioners; invitation extended to citizens to review existing plan; announcement of website address and that hard a copy is available for review at the office of Mason County Emergency Management. Notice of availability published via newspaper, website, and other social media. No comments received which modified content. May 31 State Review Draft plan submitted to Washington State for review May FEMA Review Draft plan submitted to FEMA for review September Approved Pending Adoption FEMA approved the plan, pending adoption by County and all of its Planning Partners September Adoption Most members of the planning team live or work in the planning area. Planning team participation by individuals with varied backgrounds and from varied organizations added details and information that were valuable in identifying direction for the plan development process. The County created a new webpage, which hosted a mitigation section, wherein all notices and survey links were posted. During meetings within the planning area or attended elsewhere by planning team members, individuals were directed to the website to gain better insight of the County’s endeavors and to solicit input. The planning team identified stakeholders to target through the public involvement strategy. Members of the planning team attending conferences or meetings provided updates to those in attendance, asking for input and review of the plan. 2.7 HAZARD QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS A hazard mitigation plan questionnaire developed by the planning team was used to gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and techniques for reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This questionnaire was designed to help identify areas vulnerable to one or more natural hazards. The answers to its questions helped guide the planning partners in selecting goals, objectives, and mitigation strategies, as well as helping to identify potential vulnerability with respect to social inequalities as they relate to respondents. Hard copies were disseminated throughout the planning area, and a web-based version was made available on the hazard mitigation plan website which was distributed and announced during meetings. A flyer was also developed and distributed with the website address and a QR code. The flyer was posted in various locations throughout the planning area, and distributed during meetings. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-22 September 2023 Survey Results Over 75 questionnaires were completed. Figure 2-6 shows a sample from the web-based questionnaire. Survey responses indicate a close match between respondents’ hazards of greatest concern and hazards identified through the Planning Team’s risk ranking. Points of interest from the survey results include: • 44 percent of respondents have experienced an earthquake over the last 20 years; 77 percent have experienced a severe weather event. Severe weather events are the majority of hazards that have impacted the County in the last 20 years. 40 percent of respondents have also experienced a wildland fire. • 81 percent of respondents have experienced a disaster incident while living in Mason County, while 69 percent indicate that such incident(s) did not impact their ability to utilize their residence due to damages. Of those responding, approximately 49 percent have lived in Mason County for more than 20 years. • Respondents identified the primary hazards of concern as follows: – Earthquake – Wildland Fire – Severe weather – Landslide – Flood – Climate Change • Drought, tsunami, hazardous materials, and volcanic eruption were the hazards of least concern. • Most respondents identified the hazards to which their residences were at risk (flood, fire, landslide hazard area), with over 67 percent of respondents indicating that the impact of disaster incidents played a role in their decision to purchase their residence. 93 percent of respondents indicate they have homeowners’ or renters’ insurance. • When queried about their level of preparedness, 49 percent indicate they are somewhat prepared, while 30 percent indicate they are adequately prepared, and 17 percent well prepared, maintaining a surplus of extra medical supplies, food, water, identifying utility shut-off valves, and having fire escape plans in place. • Demographic data indicates that 62 percent of respondents were female, with over 47 percent having a college degree, followed by some college and technical trade schooling. 41 percent of respondents indicate they are 61 years or older, followed by 28 percent between the ages of 41-50. • General comments include positive feedback for the county’s and the PUDs’ use of social media during times of incidents as television and radio stations seldom provide relevant data; some voiced concern over isolation resulting from impact to major arterials; some comments were received concerning citizens’ capacity to take care of themselves without reliance on government. Several citizens provided contact information to provide Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-23 September 2023 assistance and volunteer with emergency management (data was provided to emergency management). • The internet and social media are the preferred methods for distributing information to citizens in the County, with 84 percent indicating those sources to be their preference in information exchange. • Over half of respondents indicated that data concerning potential hazards and risk information is readily available.. Figure 2-7 illustrates one of the public outreach events that occurred during the planning process. Figure 2-6 Introduction to Mason County Survey Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Planning Process Bridgeview Consulting 2-24 September 2023 Figure 2-7 Pioneer Middle School Public Outreach Event Figure 2-8 PUD 1 Website for Mitigatoin Activities Bridgeview Consulting 3-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 3. COMMUNITY PROFILE This section of the hazard mitigation plan presents an overview of Mason County, the communities of Allyn and Belfair, the City of Shelton, and the unincorporated areas of the County. It provides baseline information on the characteristics of the county, the communities, economy and land use patterns, and presents the backdrop for this mitigation planning process. The planning area for this hazard mitigation plan is defined as all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Mason County. All partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority within their defined planning areas. 3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Mason County is comprised of a total land mass of ~972 square miles. The County has ~92 square miles of marine shoreline, nearly 100 freshwater lakes, two major rivers, and a number of smaller tributaries and creeks. The County is located in western Washington at the southwest end of Puget Sound. It is bordered to the north by Jefferson County, to the west and southwest by Grays Harbor County, and to the southeast by Thurston County. The County’s eastern boundary----shared with Kitsap, Pierce, and Thurston Counties----is primarily delineated by the rugged contours of Hood Canal and Case Inlet. The City of Shelton, the only incorporated area in Mason County, includes approximately 4.77 square miles, or less than one percent of the County’s total land area. Two Native American Tribes, the Skokomish and the Squaxin Island Tribes, have reservations within the boundaries of Mason County. Mason’s topography was heavily influenced by prehistoric glacial activity. After the ice retreated, the more mountainous areas in the County’s interior evolved into dense forest land. This is particularly true in the north County, much of which is incorporated in the Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park (elevations in this part of the county reach 6,000 feet above sea level). The lower elevations (where they are not forested) consist of fertile, but gravelly, loam. Past glacial activity accounts for nearly 100 lakes that dot the county. The larger of these bodies are Lake Cushman, Mason Lake, Lake Limerick, Isabella Lake, Timber Lake, and Spencer Lake. Hood Canal and Puget Sound account for most of Mason County’s 90 square miles of water. Two-thirds of Hood Canal runs through Mason County. Two-to-three miles wide in certain places, Hood Canal enters the county from the north and, in the course of its 30-plus mile stretch, turns northeasterly at the Great Bend to form a lopsided ‘‘V.’’ Case Inlet forms the lower half of Mason’s eastern boundary. Lying in County waters are two big islands----Harstine and Squaxin----and three smaller ones: Hope, Reach, and Stretch. Of the innumerable inlets that break up the county’s shore, two deserve mention: Hammersley Inlet (Shelton’s access to Puget Sound) and Little Skookum Inlet (Kamilche’s access to Puget Sound). Three geological provinces combine to form Mason County. They include the Puget Sound Lowland, the Olympic Mountains, and the Black Hills. Additionally, seven watersheds exist within Mason County. They include Case Inlet, Chehalis, Lower Hood Canal, Oakland Bay, Skokomish, Totten-Little Skookum, and West Hood Canal. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-2 September 2023 The longest and most powerful river in Mason County is the Skokomish. Formed high in the Olympic Mountains, the Skokomish flows southeasterly through Mason County before emptying at the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. One fork of the Skokomish feeds Lake Cushman and the hydroelectric power plant at Potlatch (built and owned by the City of Tacoma). The Skokomish River is the largest source of freshwater to Hood Canal and of critical importance to the overall health of Hood Canal. Other notable rivers in Mason County are the Satsop and Hamma Hamma. Originating in the south County, the Satsop flows southwesterly to Grays Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. The Hamma Hamma runs east near the County’s northern border before flowing into Hood Canal. Combined national, state, and private forest currently account for ~57 percent of the County’s land. Mineral deposits underlie Mason County’s top soils, with open space in the County hosting wildlife habitat, undeveloped natural areas, and many developed park and recreation sites. 3.2 CLIMATE Mason County lies on the southeast side of the Olympic Coastal Range, which influences prevailing wind and precipitation patterns. Mason County’s climate can be characterized as moderate-maritime, influenced by the Pacific Ocean, yet sheltered by the Olympic Mountains. Temperatures range from a high of 77° F. in July to 33° F. in January. The average daily temperature in Mason County is 51° F. The County receives an average of 66 inches of precipitation annually, with average monthly rainfalls ranging from a low in July of 0.9 inches, to a high of 10.4 inches in January. Based on data from USA Facts (2022), temperatures within Mason County have increased 0.2 degrees from May 1900 to April 2022 (see Figure 3-1). The 12-month total precipitation increased 9.9 inches from May 1900 to April 2022. From May 1900 to April 2022, the average 12-month total precipitation was 88.6 inches. The wettest 12-month average was November 1996-Octobr 1997, with a total of 132.5 inches. The driest 12-month average was December 1928-November 1929, with only 49.5 inches (see Figure 3-2). April 2022 had 9 inches of precipitation, which is 4 inches wetter than average when compared to all Aprils since 1985.1 1 Climate in Mason County, Washington | USAFacts Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-3 September 2023 Figure 3-1 Mason County 12-month Average Temperature 1900-2022 Figure 3-2 Mason County 12-month Precipitation Totals 1900-2022 3.3 MAJOR PAST HAZARD EVENTS Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state or local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses, tribal, and public entities. In some instances, grant funding from disaster declarations are also matched by state programs and funds, for which the County and its planning partners may be eligible. FEMA categorizes disaster declarations as one of three types: • Presidential major disaster declaration—Major disasters are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados, or major fires that the President determines warrant supplemental federal aid. The event must be clearly more than state or local governments can handle alone. Funding comes from the President’s Disaster Relief Fund, managed by FEMA and disaster aid programs of other participating federal agencies. A presidential major disaster declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-4 September 2023 of which are matched by state programs (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program), to help disaster victims (Individual Assistance, National Flood Insurance Program), businesses (Small Business Administration), and public entities (Public Assistance). These are the various types of funding which the County and its planning partners have received most often after disaster events. • Emergency declaration—An emergency declaration is more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of a presidential major disaster declaration. Generally, federal assistance and funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need or to help prevent a major disaster from occurring. • Fire management assistance declaration (44 CFR 204.21)—FEMA approves declarations for fire management assistance when a fire constitutes a major disaster, based on the following criteria: – Threat to lives and improved property, including threats to critical facilities and critical watershed areas – Availability of state and local firefighting resources – High fire danger conditions, as indicated by nationally accepted indices such as the National Fire Danger Ratings System – Potential major economic impact. Since 1956, 28 federal disaster declarations have affected Mason County, as listed in Table 3-1 (FEMA, 2023). Review of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a community’s capability to avoid large-scale events in the future. Unfortunately, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern. Table 3-1 identifies additional events which occurred in the planning area which did not rise to the level of a disaster declaration. Planning partners impacted by non-declared events also identified those events in their disaster history table within their respective annex documents, if such occurred. In addition, the various hazard profiles, such as Drought events declared at the state level, but not at the federal level, are also identified. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-5 September 2023 Table 3-1 Disaster Declarations for Hazard Events in Mason County 1956-2022 Di s a s t e r N u m b e r Pr o g r a m s De c l a r e d De c l a r a t i o n D a t e Incident Incident Date Comments/ Dollar Losses (if available) IA PA Type Title 4650 N Y 3/29/2022 Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storms, Straight- Line Winds, Flooding 12/26/2021 – 1/15/ 2022 Pending 4593 N Y 4/8/2021 Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storms, Straight- line Winds, Flooding 12/29/2020- 1/16/2021 ~$5.4 million statewide 4539 N Y 4/23/2020 Flood Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides 1/20 – 2/10/2020 $10.6 million statewide 4481 / 3427 Y Y 3/22/2020 Pan-demic COVID-19 1/20/ 2020 - continuing Continuing 4418 N Y 3/4/2019 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm 12/10 – 12/24/ 2018 $12.7 statewide 4253 N Y 2/2/2016 Flood Severe Winter Storm, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides 12/1/ to 12/14/ 2015 PUD 3: $103,500 4249 N Y 1/15/2016 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides 11/12/ to 11/21/ 2015 PUD 3: $271,668 4056 N Y 3/5/2012 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides 1/14/ to 1/23/ 2012 PUD 3: $507,645 1825 N Y 3/2/2009 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm And Record And Near Record Snow 12/12/2008 to 1/5/ 2009 PUD 3: $174,206 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-6 September 2023 Table 3-1 Disaster Declarations for Hazard Events in Mason County 1956-2022 Di s a s t e r N u m b e r Pr o g r a m s De c l a r e d De c l a r a t i o n D a t e Incident Incident Date Comments/ Dollar Losses (if available) IA PA Type Title 1817 N Y 1/30/2009 Flood Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides, Flooding 1/6/ to 1/16/ 2009 PUD 3: $61,239 1734 Y Y 12/8/2007 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides 12/1 to 12/17/ 2007 PUD 3: $800,706 1682 N Y 2/14/2007 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides 12/14 to 12/15/ 2006 PUD 3: +$1.4M 1641 N Y 5/17/2006 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Tidal Surge, Landslides, Mudslides 1/27 to 2/4/2006 1499 Y Y 11/7/2003 Severe Storm Severe Storms and Flooding 10/15 to 10/23/ 2003 Disaster also included Drought for some counties in state. 1361 Y Y 3/1/2001 Earthquake Earthquake 2/28/ to 3/16/ 2001 1172 Y Y 4/2/1997 Flood Heavy Rains, Snow Melt, Flooding, Land- and Mud- slides 3/18/ to 3/28/ 1997 1159 Y Y 1/17/1997 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Land- & Mud-slides, Flooding 12/26/1996 to 2/10/ 1997 1079 Y Y 1/3/1996 Severe Storm Severe Storms, High Wind, Flooding 11/7 to 12/18/ 1995 981 N Y 3/4/1993 Severe Storm Severe Storms and High Wind 1/20 to 1/21/ 1993 883 Y Y 11/26/1990 Flood Severe Storms and Flooding 11/9 to 12/20/ 1990 623 Y Y 5/21/1980 Volcano Volcanic Eruption, Mt. St. Helens 5/21/ 1980 612 Y N 12/31/1979 Flood Storms, High Tides, Mudslides, Flooding 12/31/ 1979 492 Y Y 12/13/1975 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding 12/13/ 1975 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-7 September 2023 Table 3-1 Disaster Declarations for Hazard Events in Mason County 1956-2022 Di s a s t e r N u m b e r Pr o g r a m s De c l a r e d De c l a r a t i o n D a t e Incident Incident Date Comments/ Dollar Losses (if available) IA PA Type Title 414 Y Y 1/25/1974 Flood Severe Storms, Snowmelt, Flooding 1/25/ 1974 196 Y Y 5/11/1965 Earth-quake Earthquake 5/11/ 1965 185 Y Y 12/29/1964 Flood Heavy Rains and Flooding 12/29/ 1964 Additional Event Data NA Snow Snow Storm, Landslides 12/21-24/2012 NA Wild-fire 240 Acres burned by PUD 3 Headquarters 10/2014 NA Wind Severe Wind Storm 3/10-13/2016 Highlighted cells are events impacting the County and its partners but not declared. The most common disasters to occur are severe storms and flooding. Those hazards are further broken down by month, year, recurrence intervals (not based on order of magnitude), probability of occurrence, and FEMA ranking as illustrated in Table 3-2. These are based on FEMA event typing. For these generalized purposes, recurrence intervals are determined by the number of events divided by the number of years to obtain an average. In some instances, recurrence intervals based on magnitude are contained within the hazard profiles. The recurrence intervals are not based on the order of magnitude (e.g., a 100-year storm), but rather on the fact that the event occurred, no matter what the magnitude. The Percent Probability of Occurrence is calculated by the dividing the number of events by years, and then multiplying that sum by 100 to create the percent probability of an event occurring in any given year. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-8 September 2023 Table 3-2 Storm Disaster History by Month, Recurrence, and Probability of occurrence Hazard Type Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap Ma y Ju n e Ju l y Au g Se p t Oc t No v De c To t a l Ye a r s o f O c c u r r e n c e FE M A R a n k Re c u r r e n c e / Y e a r s (N o O r d e r o f M a g n i t u d e ) Pr o b a b i l i t y / ( P e r c e n t r i s k th a t a n e v e n t m a y o c c u r ) Flood 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 10 64, 74, 75, 79, 90, 97, 09, 16, 20, 22 2 6.5 15.38 Severe Storm 3 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 93, 96, 97, 03, 06, 07 (x2), 09, 12, 16, 19, 21 1 5.4 18.46 TOTAL 5 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 22 Based on FEMA designation and dates. 3.4 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 3.4.1 Definition Critical facilities and infrastructure are those that are essential to the health and welfare of the population. Loss of a critical facility could also result in a severe economic or catastrophic impact, and have a cascading impact on the various community lifelines. These facilities become especially important after a hazard event. Critical facilities typically include police and fire stations, schools, and emergency operations centers. Critical infrastructure can include the roads and bridges that provide ingress and egress and allow emergency vehicles access to those in need, and the utilities that provide water, electricity, and communication services to the community. Also included are “Tier II” facilities and railroads, which hold or carry significant amounts of hazardous material s with a potential to impact public health and welfare in a hazard event. For purposes of this planning effort, the Planning Team utilized a pre-existing definition of critical facilities which has historically been utilized throughout the County during various planning efforts. The previously developed list was reviewed and updated during this 2023 process, and encompasses the following: • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, communication centers and towers, and emergency operations centers needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events • Public and private utilities and infrastructure vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to areas damaged by hazard events. These include, but are not limited to: – Public and private water supply infrastructure, water and wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure, potable water pumping, flow regulation, distribution and storage facilities and infrastructure. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-9 September 2023 – Public and private power generation (electrical and non-electrical), regulation and distribution facilities and infrastructure. – Data and server communication facilities. – Structures that manage or limit the impacts of natural hazards such as regional flood conveyance systems, potable water trunk main interconnect systems and redundant pipes crossing fault lines and reservoirs. – Major road and rail systems including bridges, airports, and marine terminal facilities. • Hospitals, nursing homes, and care facilities, including facilities that provide critical medical services. • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, and/or water-reactive materials (e.g., hazmat facilities). • Public gathering places used as evacuation centers during large-scale disasters. • Governmental facilities central to governance and quality of life along with response and recovery actions taken as a result of a hazard event. 3.4.2 Critical Facilities Update This process included an update of the critical facilities identified during the 2023 plan development. Limited development of critical facilities occurred for the County itself since completion of the last plan; however, several of the planning partners have acquired (purchased) facilities or infrastructure, or built new structures. This update includes those new facilities/structures. A total of 294 structures were identified for this update process, total in excess of $281 million in structure value. While all critical facilities identified are incorporated into this planning process, due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The list is on file with each planning partner. Table 3-3 provides a summary of the general types of critical facilities and infrastructure owned and operated by the planning team members. This list is not all encompassing by all planning partners. Deficiencies in this list has been identified as a strategy by the planning team to continue improving the data for use in future plan updates. All critical facilities/infrastructure identified in the plan were analyzed in the GIS platform to help rank risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard. Figure 3-3 illustrates the general location of critical facilities and infrastructure throughout Mason County. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-10 September 2023 Figure 3-3 Planning Area Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-11 September 2023 Table 3-3 Mason County Critical Facilities Critical Facility Type Count Building Values (Combined) Communications 3 $1,875,633 Government/Administration 19 $7,896,230 Hazmat (Government Owned Facilities) 4 $2,272,500 Medical (Mason General Hospital) 1 $5,141,000 Other (Landfills) 5 $810,000 Protective 47 $20,076,114 Power 20 $50,444,025 Shelters, Gym, Gathering Structures 2 $5,803,612 Water 169 $10,839,522 Wastewater 24 $168,059,890 Totals 294 $281,587,026 3.4.3 Community Lifelines A community lifeline enables the continuous operation of critical government and business functions and is essential to human health and safety or economic security.2 They are the fundamental services which enable other aspects of society to function, supporting the reoccurring needs of a community, and enable other aspects of society to function. However, when any element of these lifelines are disrupted, that disruption can negatively impact other lifelines from functioning appropriately. In serious but purely local incidents, interruptions of water service, electric power, and other community lifeline components are typically brief and can be mitigated more easily. However, severe and widespread incidents such as a Cascadia earthquake, severe flood or wildfire event can halt lifeline services for many weeks or months. Such disruptions are especially extensive in catastrophic incidents and may result in mass casualties and other cascading consequences. FEMA has identified seven community lifelines, identified in Table 3-4. Each lifeline depends on multiple infrastructure sectors, businesses, and supply chains to function. Focusing on community lifelines allows emergency managers and their partners to account for these complex interdependencies and prioritize response operations to achieve high-impact, multi-sector benefits. 2 National Response Framework, 4th Edition. (2019) Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-12 September 2023 Table 3-4 Community Lifeline Descriptions Community Lifeline Description Safety and Security Law enforcement and government services, as well as the associated assets that maintain communal security, provide search and rescue, evacuations, and firefighting capabilities, and promote responder safety. Food, Water, Shelter Support systems that enable the sustainment of life, such as water treatment, transmission, and distribution systems; food retail and distribution networks; wastewater collection and treatment systems; as well as sheltering, and agriculture. Health and Medical Infrastructure and service providers for medical care, public health, patient movement, fatality management, behavioral health, veterinary support, and health or medical supply chains. Energy Service providers for electric power infrastructure, composed of generation, transmission, and distribution systems, as well as gas and liquid fuel processing, transportation, and delivery systems. Disruptions can have a limiting effect on the functionality of other community lifelines. Communications Infrastructure owners and operators of broadband Internet, cellular networks, landline telephony, cable services (to include undersea cable), satellite communications services, and broadcast networks (radio and television). Communication systems encompass a large set of diverse modes of delivery and technologies, often intertwined but largely operating independently. Services include elements such as alerts, warnings, and messages, as well as 911 and dispatch. Also includes accessibility of financial services. Transportation Multiple modes of transportation that often serve complementary functions and create redundancy, adding to the inherent resilience in overall transportation networks. Transportation infrastructure generally includes highway/roadways, mass transit, railway, aviation, maritime, pipeline, and intermodal systems. Hazardous Material Systems that mitigate threats to public health/welfare and the environment. This includes assessment of facilities that use, generate, and store hazardous substances, as well as specialized conveyance assets and efforts to identify, contain, and remove incident debris, pollution, contaminants, oil or other hazardous substances. In an effort to help ensure the on-going functionality of those Community Lifelines, throughout this HMP update process, the County has been inclusive of the elements of the Community Lifelines, including planning partners and stakeholders, and identifying critical facilities which encompass the functionality of the various sectors. This includes local governments for continuity of government, energy (as well as other public utilities providing water and wastewater, etc.), entities providing communications, health and medical services, safety and security (including law enforcement, fire, corrections), transportation, and identification and assessment of hazardous materials locations. All of these elements are integrated into the various plan components, including by identification of the critical facilities making up the lifelines, through the risk assessment completed to identify potential impact from the various hazards of concern, and identification of mitigation action items which, when implemented, will help reduce the impact on those lifelines. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-13 September 2023 3.4.4 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials can be released for many reasons, including as a potential terrorist target, human error, or the structural integrity being compromised by a natural hazard event, such as an earthquake, tsunami, flood, or landslide (among others). Release of hazardous materials could cause significant damage to the environment and people. Figure 3-4 identifies the location of potential hazmat sites in Mason County as identified in Washington State Department of Ecology’s Hazardous Materials Annual Report (2022). These facilities include both public and private structures required to report chemicals based on their quantity and type. Figure 3-4 Hazardous Materials Facilities 3.5 POPULATION Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Elderly people, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance. Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly (especially older single men), the disabled, women, children, ethnic minorities, and renters all experience, to some degree, more severe effects from disasters than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-14 September 2023 and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post-disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability—such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity—often overlap spatially and often in the geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher concentrations of vulnerable community members would assist the County in extending focused public outreach and education to these most vulnerable citizens. Knowledge of the composition of the population, how it has or may change in the future is needed for informed planning decisions. Information about population is a critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public facilities and services, and transportation. As of 2021, Mason County is the 29th most populous county in Washington, with 67,615 residents. Table 3-5 presents Mason County and the City of Shelton’s population, area, and density data as established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3-5 2022 Population, Area, and Density Figures Geographic area Population Housing units Persons Per Household Area in square miles Density per square mile of land area Total area Water area Land area Population Housing units Mason County 67,615 60,699* +2.9% (percent increase) 33,674 32,518* 2.55 1,051.02 91.60 959.55 959.42* 68.5 63.3* 33.9 `Shelton, City of 10,763 9,834* +3.8% (percent increase) 3,847* 2.96 6.09 0.33 5.82 5.76* 1,783.2 1,708.7* 668.4 *Reflects 2017 data for comparison 3.5.1 Population Trends Population changes are useful socio-economic indicators. A growing population generally indicates a growing economy, while a decreasing population signifies economic decline. Between 1970 and 1980 the County had a relatively large population boost; however, in the decades to follow the increases declined by more than half and continue to do so. Between 1970 and 1980, the County experienced a population increase of 49% percent (10,266 people), an average annual rate of 4.9%. The decade between 1980 and 1990 saw a reduction in population increases for Mason County of more than 50% going from 49% in 1980 to 23% in 1990. An increase in this percent was Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-15 September 2023 seen in 2000. Since completion of the last plan, the population has increased ~11% within the County, and ~9.5% in the City of Shelton. 3.5.2 Social Vulnerability Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Elderly people may be more likely to require additional assistance during a disaster incident, or might be less able to provide such care during a crisis, finding the magnitude of the task of providing that care beyond their capability. Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly, the disabled, women, children, ethnic minorities, and renters all experience, to some degree, more severe effects from disasters than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post-disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability—such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity—often overlap spatially and often in the geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher concentrations of vulnerable community members would help to extend focused public outreach and education to these most vulnerable citizens. During emergencies, real-time evacuation information may not be provided to people with limited English proficiency, the hearing and visually impaired, and other special needs group. Many low- income people may be stranded because they have no personal transportation, and no mass transit (especially during emergencies) is available. For the poor, they are less likely to have the income, or assets needed to prepare for a possible disaster, or to recover after a disaster. Although the monetary value of their property may be less than that of other households, it likely represents a larger portion of the total household assets. As such, lost property is proportionately more expensive to replace, especially without insurance. Additionally, unemployed persons do not have employee benefits that provide health cost assistance. High-income populations who suffer higher household losses (absolute terms) find their overall position mitigated by insurance policies and other financial investments not available to lower income households. 3.5.3 Age Distribution As a group, the elderly are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response to hazard events and more likely to suffer health-related consequences making recovery slower. They are more likely to be vision, hearing, and/or mobility impaired, and more likely to experience mental impairment or dementia. Additionally, the elderly are more likely to live in assisted-living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-16 September 2023 These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Figure 3-5 illustrates age distribution for Mason County (Washington State Department of Commerce). Figure 3-5 Mason County Age Distribution Elderly residents may have more difficulty evacuating their homes and could be stranded in dangerous situations. This population group is more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population. Based on U.S. Census Data, Mason County is an older community compared to the State of Washington, with approximately 24% of its population 65 years and over compared to ~16 percent at the state level. 8.3 percent of the population are 75 and over. The median age in Mason County is 44.4 years, compared to 38.2 in Washington. Children under 5 are particularly vulnerable to disasters because of their dependence on others for basic necessities. Very young children are additionally vulnerable to injury or sickness; this vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves. Approximately 5% of the population is 5 years and under. Approximately 19.5 percent of county residents are younger than 18, which remains consistent with the previous plan. 3.5.4 Race, Ethnicity, and Language Research shows that minorities are less likely to be involved in pre-disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during a disaster event. Post-disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the majority white population, poverty can compound vulnerability. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-17 September 2023 The County is less diverse than the state in terms of race and ethnicity. According to the 2021 U.S. Census Bureau’s QuickFacts, racial makeup of the county was 86.9% white, 4.7% American Indian, 1.5% Asian, and 1.6% black or African American. Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 11.3% of the population. The County also had approximately 8,000 Veterans, higher than the state average. Approximately 8.1% of the County’s population indicated a language other than English spoken in the home. 3.5.5 Disabled Populations People with disabilities are more likely than the general population to have difficulty responding to a hazard event. As disabled populations are increasingly integrated into society, they are more likely to require assistance during the 72 hours after a hazard event, the period generally reserved for self- help. There is no “typical” disabled person, which can complicate disaster-planning processes that attempt to incorporate them. Disability is likely to be compounded with other vulnerabilities, such as age, economic disadvantage, and ethnicity, all of which mean that housing is more likely to be substandard. Approximately 21.9 percent of the County’s population is disabled, which is higher than the state’s value of 13.1 percent. Of those disabled, 10.3 percent are due to ambulatory difficulties, followed by 7.8 percent with independent living difficulties, and 10.1 percent with hearing or vision difficulties. 3.6 ECONOMY Knowing the economic characteristics of a community can assist in the analysis of the community’s ability to prepare, respond, and rebuild safer after a natural hazard. Categorizing economic vulnerability can encompass many factors, including median household income, poverty rates, employment and unemployment rates, housing tenure, and community building inventory. Natural resource industries currently support Mason County's economy and are expected to be as important in the future. The County is highly specialized in the production of forestry and aquaculture commodities. This specialization focuses on both raw materials and value-added products. Heavy construction and government service also anchor the County's economy. Government is the County's largest employer. Over 22 percent of Mason County's total employment was provided by the government sector. The service industry was the largest private employer, followed closely by the retail industry. 3.6.1 Income and Employment In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters to some extent. This means that households living in poverty are automatically disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, the poor typically occupy more poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, the poor often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, residents below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-18 September 2023 compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This means that residents below the poverty level have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to deal with potential losses. Personal household economics also significantly impact people’s decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate. Mason County’s average annual wage in 2020 was $47,038 below the state’s average of $76,801. The median hourly wage in 2020 was $22.35, below the state’s median hourly wage of $29.28 and the state excluding King County median hourly wage of $25.01. Personal income in 2020 lagged both the state and nation, as Mason County’s per capita personal income was $45,901, less than the state ($67,126) and the nation’s ($59,510).3 The median household income in 2021 Mason County was $78,587. The county’s median was less than the state’s ($89,012). The County’s poverty rate was 12.6 percent, which is higher than the state rate. Unemployment in the area was 7.7 percent, with distressed areas for the state incurring an unemployment rate greater than or equal to 7.2 percent (see Figure 3-6).4 The unemployment rate for the County has decreased since the 2017 plan was written, at which time the rate was 8.5 percent. Figure 3-6 Mason County 2021 Unemployment Rates 3 US Census Bureau. Accessed 23 Jan 2023. Available online at: Mason County, Washington - Census Bureau Profile 4 Washington State Employment Security Division. Accessed 23 Jan 2023. Available online at: ESDWAGOV - Distressed areas list Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 September 2023 Review of the Local Employment Dynamics data indicates that during 2020, the largest jobholder age group in Mason County was the 55 and older age category, making up 26.5 percent of employment across all industries. The next largest share was among persons aged 35-44 with 21.8 percent of employment.5 The four primary industries are: educational, health care and social assistance services; professional, scientific, management and waste management; public administration, and retail trade. 3.6.2 Housing Stock According to A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management (Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2011), housing quality is an important factor in assessing disaster vulnerability. It is closely tied to personal wealth: people in lower income brackets often live in more poorly constructed homes that are especially vulnerable to strong storms or earthquakes. Mobile homes are not designed to withstand severe weather or flooding, and typically do not have basements. They are frequently found outside of metropolitan areas and, therefore, may not be readily accessible by interstate highways or public transportation. Also, because mobile homes are often clustered in communities, their overall vulnerability is increased. Rent in the area is considerably lower than statewide average. The American Community Survey estimates that Mason County has in approximately 4,601 mobile homes (or other types of housing) within its boundaries, with 33,674 (as of July 2021) housing units (American Community Survey, 2023). The median value of housing stock was $249,100 (US Census QuickFacts). 3.6.3 Building Stock Age The age of a building in determining vulnerability is a significant factor, as it helps identify the building code to which a structure was built. Homes built prior to 1975 are considered pre-code since there was no statewide requirement to include specific standards to address the various hazards of concern (e.g., there were no seismic provisions contained within the building code). Structures built after 1975 are considered of moderate code. It was at that point in time in which all Washington jurisdictions were required to adhere to the provision of the most recently adopted version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (Noson et al., 1988). It should be noted that the data may be slightly skewed due to the fact that actual building code adoption dates vary slightly by jurisdiction. Structures may also have undergone remodel, or improvements which changed the building code classification, increasing the level of code applied. That data may not have been captured or applied in a manner which would reflect a change in the year of construction. Additionally, while building codes may not have been in place, houses may have been constructed to higher standards. As a result, 5 Washington State Employment Security Department – [Mason County] Community Profile. Accessed 23 Jan 2023. Available at: https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/mason Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-20 September 2023 this data should be used for planning purposes only. Questions concerning actual structural integrity should be determined by appropriate subject matter experts in the field. Based on data reviewed from the American Survey Fact Finder, Table 3-6 identifies the estimated number of structures in Mason County by year. Review of FEMA’s 2017 Risk Map Report identifies that approximately 40 percent of buildings in the City of Shelton were built before 1960, meaning that a high percentage of Shelton buildings could be impacted by ground shaking during an earthquake (FEMA Risk Report, 2017). Further review of FEMA’s 2017 Risk Map Report identifies that within the unincorporated areas of Mason County reported, a higher percentage of its buildings have been built after 1960, which is confirmed by the 2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey data. Table 3-6 Percent of Years Structures Built 1939-2021* Year Percent Total Estimated Number of Structures Per Year 1939 or Earlier 3% 1,052 1940-1959 5% 1,500 1960-1979 19% 6,302 1980-1999 27% 9,153 2000 or Later 46% 15,677 TOTAL 100% 33,674 Based on 2021 US Census – American Community Survey 3.7 LAND USE PLANNING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The County Comprehensive Plan includes components that help to guide the vision for the County: Planning Policies, Future Land Use Analysis, Critical Areas, and Capital Facilities. Within Washington State, the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans, and implementing those plans through capital investments and development regulations. Mason County is in compliance with GMA requirements and guidelines, and has developed regulatory authority which helps reduce the impact of the hazards of concern, including as they relate to critical areas. Critical areas are environmentally sensitive natural resources that have been designated for protection and management in accordance with the requirements of the GMA. Protection and management of these areas are important to the preservation of ecological functions of our natural environment, as well as the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of our community. Information from this mitigation plan will continue to help identify the critical areas throughout the county and its incorporated jurisdictions and UGAs. The information will also be used during update of the comprehensive plan. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-21 September 2023 The Community Development Director for Mason County was a planning team member during this update, and provide the current status and information for inclusion in this 2023 updated HMP. The County’s Community Development Department includes the Planning Department, which is responsible for updating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and for overseeing and regulating land use and development in unincorporated Mason County to protect the health, safety, and welfare of County residents. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is currently under review and update, with the anticipated completion in December 2024. The Community Department is also responsible for floodplain management in the County (with the most recent NFIP maps adopted in 2019) and adoption and implementation of the 2021 International Building Codes (which are in process of adoption as of this 2023 update). The County’s comprehensive plan governs its land use decision- and policy-making process in accordance with GMA guidelines. Data from this plan will continue to assist county programs that support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards in Mason County. Table 3-7 identifies land use classifications, acres in such classification, and the percent of total land area within the County. With the on-going update of the Comprehensive Plan, these totals may change during the life cycle of this plan. Reviewers should contact the County for the most accurate information if necessary. The Community Department works closely with other county and local-agency departments, the general public, land-owners, special interest groups, and businesses to oversee development in unincorporated Mason County, ensuring land use remains consistent with federal, state and county regulations. Utilzing estimated population growth statistics, the county has estimated how the future growth in population will be distributed among the different districts created in the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 3-7 illustrates the future land use within Mason County as identified within its 2017 Comprehensive Plan update (most current as of this 2023 update, but will change with the update to the Comprehensive Plan). The future land use has three Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), three Rural Activity Centers, and eleven Hamlets. The UGAs include the City of Shelton and the communities of Allyn and Belfair. The Rural Activity Centers include Union, Hoodsport, and Taylor Town. The Hamlets include Bayshore, Dayton, Deer Creek, Eldon, Grapeview, Lake Cushman, Lilliwaup, Matlock, Potlatch, Spencer Lake, and Tahuya. Table 3-7 Present Land Use in Planning Area* Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total Agri/Aquaculture 15,375 1.7 Commercial 9,721 1.1 Forest 556,015 60.4 Governmental Services (includes land owned by Tacoma Public Utilities, which is leased to individuals for residential structures) 17,779 1.9 Mining 320 0.0 Parks 4,211 0.5 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-22 September 2023 Table 3-7 Present Land Use in Planning Area* Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total Residential 82,010 8.9 Transportation 5,468 0.6 Utility/Easement/Right of Way 4,101 0.4 Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 225,362 24.5 Total 920,360 100 *Simultaneous with the update of this 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County is also in the process of updating its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, with anticipated completion in December 2024. Completion of that plan may impact the areas identified within this table. Figure 3-7 Mason County Land Use Classifications (2017) Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-23 September 2023 Research in the area of growth management has demonstrated that communities experiencing economic growth who are able to invest in new development, including mitigation efforts, increase the resilience of both existing and new buildings and infrastructure. Newly constructed buildings and infrastructure are more resilient to hazards of concern and the associated impact by those hazards (e.g., ground shaking) as they are built to higher building code standards. The use of data within plans such as these play a significant role in education with respect to identifying those areas of concern addressed within Growth Management. Since 2019, the County has continued to grow and expand, with permits issued to ensure regulatory compliance and building standards are met. Table 3-8 illustrates the types and numbers for some of the permits issued. This list is not all-inclusive of all permits issued, but rather those which would have a more significant impact on mitigation efforts to ensure appropriate building codes and standards are met, helping to reduce the impacts of new construction on the existing hazards of concern, and thereby helping to increase the County’s resilience to future impacts. Table 3-8 Permit Applications 2019-2022* Permit Type 2019 2020 2021 2022* TOTAL Accessory Dwelling Unit 14 13 14 16 57 Addition or Remodel 103 64 97 42 306 Bulkhead of Dock - Residential 30 39 31 23 123 Carport/ Deck Covered 45 36 38 23 142 Demo 63 61 66 50 240 Development Reg Variance 12 11 8 11 42 Flood Damage Prevention Review 15 18 35 45 113 Forest Practices 16 13 18 13 60 Garage/Storage 127 141 130 107 505 Geological Review 100 94 124 95 413 Grading 13 17 16 9 55 Large Lot Subdivision 5 3 2 3 13 Manufactured Home - Residential 110 140 160 107 517 Manufactured Home Replacement 24 8 0 0 32 Manufactured Modular Structure Commercial 2 2 2 0 6 Mason Environmental Permit 15 20 32 24 91 New Commercial Permit 76 77 59 65 277 New SFR 273 297 301 202 1073 Repair - Residential 10 16 21 9 56 Reroof 211 228 231 188 858 Resource Ordinance Variance 2 3 2 0 7 Retaining Wall, Deck Residential 14 6 11 14 45 SEPA 101 79 93 67 340 Shoreline Conditional Use 2 0 5 2 9 Shoreline Exemption 48 52 44 41 185 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-24 September 2023 Table 3-8 Permit Applications 2019-2022* Permit Type 2019 2020 2021 2022* TOTAL Shoreline Substantial Dev 6 7 17 12 42 Shoreline Variance 1 4 5 2 12 Short Subdivision 5 7 11 14 37 Site Pre Inspection 131 165 222 150 668 Solar Panel 5 9 16 46 76 Special Use Permits 1 1 0 7 9 Window Replacement 21 0 0 0 21 Total 1601 1631 1811 1387 6430 *Permit numbers are from January – October 31, 2023 Since completion of the 2018 plan, the County saw a significant spike in new construction and remodel in 2021, which would be anticipated given the impact of COVID both on homeowners completing (significant) home repairs, as well as new construction projects from individuals moving out of urban centers. The areas of Allyn and Belfair have both seen significant growth during that time period, with Allyn experiencing a larger number of new residential structures (~70 during 2021-2022, with an anticipated ~130 additional over the course of the next year). Both UGAs are equipped to handle the continued growth with respect to the ability to provide water and wastewater facilities (as well as other required infrastructure). Both areas have multiple water purveyors, both public and private, as well as some areas which are not serviced by public utilities having private wells. The City of Shelton provides municipal water and wastewater services to its residents within the city limits. While these new structures will increase the overall potential impacts from hazards of concern, the standards to which these structures are built are such that increased vulnerability will be limited beyond the mere fact of increased numbers of structures and residents. Inclusion of the vulnerability data identified in this plan will be utilized by all planning partners in their land use and development practices. This will help assure that all future development will be established with the benefits of the information on risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan. Each planning partner’s specific annex to this plan (see Volume 2) includes an assessment of regulatory, technical, and financial capability to carry out proactive hazard mitigation. Refer to these annexes for a review of regulatory codes and ordinances applicable to each planning partner. In addition, Chapter 13 of this plan provides a general overview of the municipalities’ regulatory authority. 3.8 CLIMATE CHANGE Climate, consisting of patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons, plays a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-25 September 2023 on them. Climate change is a long-term shift in global or regional climate patterns. Often climate change refers specifically to the rise in global temperatures from the mid-20th century to present. The warming trend and its related impacts are caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming effect. Carbon dioxide is the most commonly known greenhouse gas; however, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases also contribute to warming. Emissions of these gases come from a variety of sources, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural production, and changes in land use (see Figure 3-8). Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems of Mason County in a variety of ways. Some impacts will have negative consequences for the region and others may present opportunities. The most important effect for the development of this plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards. 3.8.1 How Does Climate Change Affect Hazard Mitigation? An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of hazard events in a planning area. Typically, predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of once every five years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every five years. For hazards that are affected by climate conditions, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid if climate conditions are changing. As flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity, for example, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. The risks of avalanche, landslide, severe weather, severe winter weather and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. At present, the County has been unable to conduct a detailed assessment of climate impact in Mason County due to cost and staffing levels. However, with the completion of this plan, the County will continue eligibility for various grant programs, and may elect to pursue funding which will help develop an assessment to determine potential impacts on Mason County. As such, for this 2023 HMP update, the planning team elected to incorporate the impact of climate change on the specific hazards Figure 3-8 Climate Change Contributors Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-26 September 2023 of concern within each hazard’s profile, enabling a more clear understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on the hazards of concern in a generalized manner. Information about how climate patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis. Table 3-9 identifies the relationship between climate change risk and its influence on the various hazards of concern within the planning region. Table 3-9 Relationship Between Climate Change and Identified County Hazards Hazards of Concern Co a s t a l Er o s i o n Dr o u g h t Ea r t h q u a k e Fl o o d La n d s l i d e Severe Weather Wi l d f i r e Ts u n a m i Vo l c a n o * Co l d He a t Wi n t e r st o r m s CL I M A T E R I S K S Increased temperatures X P X X X X X P Changes in Hydrology X P X P P X X X Increased Wildfires X X X P Increase in ocean temperatures and changes in ocean chemistry P X P Increased Drought P Increased Costal Erosion P X Changes in habitat X X X X X Increase in Invasive Species and Pests X X X X P Decrease in natural vegetation X X P P X X P Loss of Wetland ecosystems and services X P P X X Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events and flooding P P X Increased Landslides X X X P X X “P” identifies the primary relationship between the risk and the identified hazard. “X” identifies a secondary relationship According to the Mason County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (2011, 2017), climate change is likely to have an impact on future water resources in the County. Over the next decades, increased regional temperatures are anticipated to lead to a reduction in snowpack and receding glaciers in the Olympic Mountains. Since many of the tributary streams in WRIA 16 and 22 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Community Profile Bridgeview Consulting 3-27 September 2023 depend upon snowmelt and glacier melt waters, these streams may be affected over time. Anticipated effects include decreased summer baseflows as snowpack and glaciers are reduced. Spring peak flows are also predicted to occur two to six weeks earlier than they do normally (CIG, 2009). Further, streams without snowmelt or headwaters in the mountains will also be affected (as in WRIA 14 and 15), perhaps more strongly, as streams currently have low in-stream flows. Additionally, the communities in Mason County that are low-lying and located adjacent to South Puget Sound and Hood Canal could be affected by sea level rise. Sea levels in Puget Sound are projected to rise between 3.0 inches and 22.0 inches by Year 2050 (Mote, 2008). Sea level rise will allow high tides to reach farther into low-lying coastal areas and rise higher on existing flood control structures such as dikes and bulkheads. Coastal flooding will persist longer and could lead to faster rates of erosion on beaches and coastal bluffs (Shipman, 2009). As Washington State Department of Ecology previously directed local governments to consider preparing for sea level rise during the Shoreline Master Program update process, during Mason County’s update of its plan, additional consideration was given in that respect. That data, as appropriate, was incorporated into this document. Bridgeview Consulting 4-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 4. RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4.1 OVERVIEW The DMA requires measuring potential losses to critical facilities and property resulting from natural hazards. A hazard is an act or phenomenon that has the potential to produce harm or other undesirable consequences to a person or thing. Natural hazards can exist with or without the presence of people and land development. However, hazards can be exacerbated by societal behavior and practice, such as building in a floodplain, along a sea cliff, or on an earthquake fault. Natural disasters are inevitable, but the impacts of natural hazards can, at a minimum, be mitigated or, in some instances, prevented entirely. The goal of the risk assessment is to determine which hazards present the greatest risk and what areas are the most vulnerable to hazards. Mason County and its planning partners are exposed to many hazards. The risk assessment and vulnerability analysis help identify where mitigation measures could reduce loss of life or damage to property in the planning region. Each hazard-specific risk assessment provides risk-based information to assist Mason County and its planning partners in determining priorities for implementing mitigation measures. The risk assessment approach used for this plan entailed using geographic information system (GIS), Hazus hazard-modeling software, and hazard-impact data to develop vulnerability models for people, structures and critical facilities, and evaluating those vulnerabilities in relation to hazard profiles that model where hazards exist. This approach is dependent on the detail and accuracy of the data used. In all instances, this assessment used Best Available Science and data to ensure the highest level of accuracy possible. The risk assessment is broken down into three phases, as follows: The first phase, hazard identification, involves the identification of the geographic extent of a hazard, its intensity, and its probability of occurrence (discussed below). This level of assessment typically involves producing a map. The outputs from this phase can be used for land use planning, management, and development of regulatory authority; public awareness and education; identifying areas which require further study; and identifying properties or structures appropriate for mitigation efforts, such as acquisition or relocation. The second phase, the vulnerability assessment, combines the information from the hazard identification with an inventory of the existing (or planned) property and population exposed to the hazard. It then attempts to predict how different types of property and population groups will be impacted or affected by the hazard of concern. This step assists in justifying changes to building codes or regulatory authority, property acquisition programs, such as those available through various granting opportunities; developing or modifying policies concerning critical or essential facilities, and public awareness and education. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-2 September 2023 The third phase, the risk analysis, involves estimating the damage, injuries, and costs likely to be incurred in the geographic area of concern over a period of time. Risk has two measurable components: 1. The magnitude of the harm that may result, defined through the vulnerability assessment; and 2. The likelihood or probability of harm occurring. Utilizing those three phases of assessment, information was developed which identifies the hazards that affect the planning area, the likely location of natural hazard impact, the severity of the impact, previous occurrences, and the probability of future hazard events. That data, once complete, is utilized to complete the Risk Ranking process described in Chapter 12, which applies all of the data captured in the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI). The following is provided as the foundation for the standardized risk terminology: • Hazard: Natural (or human caused) source or cause of harm or damage, demonstrated as actual (deterministic/historical events) or potential (probabilistic) events. • Risk: The potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from a hazard event, as determined by its likelihood and associated consequences. For this plan, where possible, risk includes potential future losses based on probability, severity, and vulnerability, expressed in dollar losses when possible. In some instances, dollar losses are based on actual demonstrated impact, such as through the use of the Hazus model. In other cases, losses are demonstrated through exposure analysis due to the inability to determine the extent to which a structure is impacted. • Location: The area of potential or demonstrated impact within the area in which the analysis is being conducted. In some instances, the area of impact is within a geographically defined area, such as a floodplain. In other instances, such as for severe weather, there is no established geographic boundary associated with the hazard, as it can impact the entire area. • Severity/Magnitude: The extent or magnitude upon which a hazard is ranked, demonstrated in various means, e.g., Richter Scale. • Vulnerability: The degree of damage, e.g., building damage or the number of people injured. • Probability of Occurrence and Return Intervals: These terms are used as a synonym for likelihood, or the estimation of the potential of an incident to occur. 4.2 METHODOLOGY The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in Mason County and meets requirements of the DMA (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(2)). The methodology used to complete the risk assessment is described below. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-3 September 2023 4.2.1 Hazard Identification and Profiles For this plan, the planning partners and stakeholders considered the full range of natural hazards that could impact the planning area and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated review of state and local hazard planning documents, as well as information on the frequency, magnitude, and costs associated with hazards that have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning area’s assets to them was also used. The Planning Team again reviewed the Tsunami hazard for consideration in this update, but elected to not do so. This decision was reached, in part, on the fact that there are currently no scenarios available on which to run analysis to determine vulnerability. However, with the inclusion of Tsunami in the newly-released Hazus model, it was suggested that this hazard be again reviewed during the next update cycle. It is hoped that developers will create a scenario on which potential impact can be determined. In the interim, review of FEMA’s Risk Map data indicates that based on a M9.0 Cascadia Earthquake Scenario, FEMA and Washington State DNR estimate that a tsunami would arrive at Mason County approximately three (3) hours after the triggering incident, creating a 5-6-foot wave height, impacting Lynch Cove. The Volcano hazard was also discussed, but the County had little historic impact from previous occurrences, and therefore the hazard was also tabled during this update, but will again be reviewed for inclusion in future updates. The planning team further reviewed the hazards considered during the 2004, 2010, and 2018 plan update. Based on the review, the planning team confirmed the following natural hazards that this plan addresses as the hazards of concern, which are the same hazards addressed during the last update: • Climate Change (Qualitative assessment now incorporated into impacted hazards rather than a stand-alone hazard) • Drought • Earthquake • Flood • Landslide • Severe Weather • Wildfire Each planning partner was also advised that if they felt there were hazards specific to only their entity, that could also be included within their specific annex. The spreadsheet utilized to rank the hazards included a mechanism for the hazard to be included and ranked. No planning partner identified any additional hazards of concern. The hazard profiles describe the risks associated with identified hazards of concern. Each chapter describes the hazard, the planning area’s vulnerabilities, and, when possible, probable event scenarios. The following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard: Identify and profile the following information for each hazard: Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-4 September 2023 • General overview and description of hazard; • Identification of previous occurrences; • Geographic areas most affected by the hazard; • Event frequency estimates; • Severity estimates; • Warning time likely to be available for response; • Risk and vulnerability assessment, which includes identification of impact on people, property, economy, and the environment. 4.2.2 Risk Assessment Process and Tools The hazard profiles and risk assessments contained in the hazard chapters describe the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern. Each chapter describes the hazard, the planning area’s vulnerabilities, and probable event scenarios. Once the profiles identified above were completed, the following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard: • Determine exposure to each hazard—Exposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which of them would be exposed to each hazard. • Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities—Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each haza rd. Tools such as GIS and Hazus were used in this assessment. • Where specific quantitative assessments could not be completed, vulnerability was measured in general, qualitative term, summarizing the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and subjective damage and casualty potential. Those items were categorized utilizing the criteria established in the CPRI index. • The final step in the process was to determine the cumulative results of vulnerabili ty based on the risk assessment and Calculated Priority Risk Index (discussed below) scoring, assigning a final qualitative assessment based on the following classifications: – Extremely Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent. – Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. – Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. – High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-5 September 2023 – Extremely High—Very widespread with catastrophic impact. 4.2.3 Hazus and GIS Applications Earthquake and Flood Modeling Overview Hazus is a GIS-based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical facility, transportation and utility lifeline, and multiple models to estimate potential losses from natural disasters. The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following: • Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities. • Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation-planning efforts evolve. • Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated. • Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology. • Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders. • Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan throughout its implementation. Building Inventory The critical facilities list was again reviewed and updated for this 2023 edition of the HMP. Each planning partner was provided the opportunity to review the previous data, and update the information. For some partners, this included a significant increase in the number of structures analyzed, while for others, the number of structures did not change, or changed only minimally. In most instances, these were not newly constructed facilities, but rather facilities purchased from other entities or service providers, such as water purveyors, or existing buildings remodeled, such as the County’s courthouse. Hazus Application for this Plan During the development of the 2018 plan, FEMA’s RiskMap Program was developing new NFIP Flood Maps and other risk data for the County. That data remains the most current, and was utilized as appropriate for this update. The following methods were used to assess specific hazards for this plan: • Flood— Analysis was based on current FEMA regulatory 100- and 500-year flood hazard data based on the 2017 Flood Study. The updated critical facilities data was utilized at the exposure level for identify structures at risk. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-6 September 2023 • Earthquake— Earthquake shake maps and probabilistic data prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were used for the analysis of this hazard. A modified version of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) soils inventory was used. GIS Application for this Plan Drought, Dam, Landslide, Severe Weather, and Wildfire - For drought, dam, landslide, severe weather, and wildfire, historical data is not adequate to model future losses as no specific damage functions have been developed. However, GIS is able to map hazard areas and calculate exposure if geographic information is available with respect to the location of the hazard and inventory data. Areas and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped and exposure was evaluated. For other hazards, a qualitative analysis was conducted using the best available data and professional judgment. Locally relevant information was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, staff, emergency management personnel and others. The primary data source was Mason County GIS data, augmented with state and federal data sets, including FEMA’s RiskMap data. Additional data sources for specific hazards were as follows: • Drought—The risk assessment methodologies used for this plan focus on damage to structures. Because drought does not impact structures, the risk assessment for drought was limited to a qualitative assessment. • Dam Failure—Inundation data was unavailable for the high- or medium-hazard dams in the County (2018, 2023). Therefore, available dam data was used only to identify the location and hazard classification of dams located within the planning area. • Landslide—Historic landslide hazard data was used to assess exposure to landslides using Washington DNR Landslide Susceptibility data. Landslide exposure is illustrated based on the number of structures which intersect a slope greater than or equal to 40 percent (or =/>21.8 degree). • Severe Weather—Severe weather data was downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Climatic Data Center, as well as other sources as cited. • Wildfire—Information on wildfire analysis was captured from various sources, including Washington DNR Wildfire History data, Wildfire Protection data, US Forest Service data, LAND FIRE data, and Wildland Urban Interface Zone data, among other sources. 4.2.4 Calculated Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria Vulnerabilities are described in terms of critical facilities, structures, population, economic values , and functionality of government which can be affected by the hazard event. Hazard impact areas describe the geographic extent a hazard can impact a jurisdiction and are uniquely defined on a hazard-by-hazard basis. Mapping of the hazards, where spatial differences exist, allows for hazard analysis by geographic location. Some hazards can have varying levels of risk based on location. Other hazards cover larger geographic areas and affect the area uniformly. Therefore, a system must be established which addresses all elements (people, property, economy, continuity of government) in order to rate each hazard consistently. The use of the Calculated Priority Risk Index allows such application, based on established criteria of application to determine the risk factor. For Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-7 September 2023 identification purposes, the six criteria on which the CPRI is based are probability, magnitude, geographic extent and location, warning time/speed of onset, and duration of the event. Those elements are further defined as follows: Probability Probability of a hazard event occurring in the future was assessed based on hazard frequency over a 100- year period (where available). Hazard frequency was based on the number of times the hazard event occurred divided by the period of record. If the hazard lacked a definitive historical record, the probability was assessed qualitatively based on regional history and other contributing factors. Probability of occurrence was assigned a 40% weighting factor, and was broken down as follows: Rating Likelihood Frequency of Occurrence 1 Unlikely Less than 1% probability in the next 100 years. 2 Possible Between 1% and 10% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in the next 100 years. 3 Likely Between 10% and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in the next 10 years. 4 Highly Likely Greater than 1 event per year (frequency greater than 1). Magnitude The magnitude of potential hazard events was evaluated for each hazard. Magnitude is a measure of the strength of a hazard event, usually determined using specific technical measures. Magnitude was calculated for each hazard where property damage data was available, and was assigned a 25% weighting factor. (Magnitude calculation was determined using the following mathematical equation: (Property Damage / Number of Incidents) / $ of Building Stock Exposure = Magnitude.) Magnitude was broken down as follows: Rating Magnitude Percentage of People and Property Affected 1 Negligible Less than 5% Very minor impact to people, property, economy, and continuity of government at 90%. 2 Limited 6% to 24% Injuries or illnesses minor in nature, with only slight property damage and minimal loss associated with economic impact; continuity of government only slightly impacted, with 80% functionality. 3 Critical 25% to 49% Injuries result in some permanent disability; 25-49% of population impacted; moderate property damage ; moderate impact to economy, with loss of revenue and facility impact; government at 50% operational capacity with service disruption more than one week, but less than a month. 4 Catastrophic More than 50% Injuries and illness resulting in permanent disability and death to more than 50% of the population; severe property damage greater than 50%; economy significantly impacted as a result of loss of buildings, content, inventory; Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-8 September 2023 Rating Magnitude Percentage of People and Property Affected government significantly impacted; limited services provided, with disruption anticipated to last beyond one month. Extent and Location The measure of the percentage of the people and property within the planning area impacted by the event, and the extent (degree) to which they are impacted. Extent and location was assigned a weighting factor of 20%, and broken down as follows: Rating Magnitude Percentage of People and Property Affected 1 Negligible Less than 10% Few if any injuries or illness. Minor quality of life lost with little or no property damage. Brief interruption of essential facilities and services for less than four hours . 2 Limited 10% to 24% Minor injuries and illness. Minor, short term property damage that does not threaten structural stability. Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 4 to 24 hours. 3 Critical 25% to 49% Serious injury and illness. Major or long-term property damage, that threatens structural stability. Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 24 to 72 hours. 4 Catastrophic More than 50% Multiple deaths Property destroyed or damaged beyond repair Complete shutdown of essential facilities and services for 3 days or more. Warning Time/Speed of Onset The rate at which a hazard occurs, or the time provided in advance of a situation occurring (e.g., notice of a cold front approaching or a potential hurricane, etc.) provides the time necessary to prepare for such an event. Sudden-impact hazards with no advanced warning are of greater concern. Warning Time/Speed of onset was assigned a 10% weighting factor, and broken down as follows: Rating Probable amount of warning time 1 More than 24 hours warning time. 2 12-24 hours warning time. 3 5-12 hours warning time. 4 Minimal or no warning time. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-9 September 2023 Duration The time span associated with an event was also considered, the concept being the longer an event occurs, the greater the threat or potential for injuries and damages. Duration was assigned a weighting factor of 5%, and was broken down as follows: Rating Duration of Event 1 6-24 hours 2 More than 24 hours 3 Less than 1 week 4 More than 1 week Chapter 11 summarizes all of the analysis conducted by way of completion of the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) for hazard ranking. 4.3 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE AND RETURN INTERVALS Natural hazard events with relatively long return periods, such as a 100-year flood or a 500- or 1,000- year earthquake, are often thought to be very unlikely. In reality, the probability that such events occur over the next 30 or 50 years is relatively high, having significant probabilities of occurring during the lifetime of a building: • Hazard events with return periods of 100 years have probabilities of occurring in the next 30 or 50 years of about 26 percent and about 40 percent, respectively. • Hazard events with return periods of 500 years have about a 6 percent and about a 10 percent chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively. • Hazard events with return periods of 1,000 years have about a 3 percent chance and about a 5 percent chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively. For life safety considerations, even natural hazard events with return periods of more than 1,000 years are often deemed significant if the consequences of the event happening are very severe (extremely high damage and/or substantial loss of life). For example, the seismic design requirements for new construction are based on the level of ground shaking with a return period of 2,475 years (2 percent probability in 50 years). Providing life safety for this level of ground shaking is deemed necessary for seismic design of new buildings to minimize life safety risk. Of course, a hazard event with a relatively long return period may occur tomorrow, next year, or within a few years. Return periods of 100 years, 500 years, or 1,000 years mean that such events have a 1 percent, a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. 4.4 COMMUNITY VARIATIONS TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT Each planning partner within their respective annex describes where or how their risk varies from what is described in the hazard profiles and risk ranking. Variations are documented in the risk assessment section in their annex to the plan, if appropriate. In some instances, declared disaster events may not have impacted a specific jurisdiction or entity. Similarly, there may have been Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-10 September 2023 incidents of significance which did not rise to a level of a disaster declaration, but were nonetheless significant to the jurisdiction or entity. As such, those differences are noted where applicable. 4.5 LIMITATIONS The models and information presented in this document does not replace or supersede any official document or product generated to meet the requirements of any state, federal, or local program, which may be much more detailed and encompassing beyond the scope of this project. The datasets presented in this document are the product of modeling and reprojection of existing data. As such, it carries an inherent degree of error and uncertainty. Users are strongly encouraged to read and fully comprehend the full reports of the data presented prior to data use. No warranty is made as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by the Originator. No life safety measures should be based on this document. This document is intended for planning purposes only and does not include any scientific analysis completed as a result of the document, as such far exceeds the intent of this document . This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Mason County and its planning partners’ information and use with respect to hazard mitigation planning, incorporating other relevant data into other planning mechanisms as appropriate. While this process utilized best available science and scientific data, the planning team, consultant, nor any of the planning partners conducted any scientific analysis within this document, and none should be construed. In some instances, national data sets are the only source available, and are for the purpose of comparing relative risk. Data included is not intended to replace studies completed by engineers, geologists, hydrologists, or other subject matter experts. It is the responsibility of the user to be familiar with the value, assumptions, and limitations of this document. Reviewers must evaluate these data according to the scale and requirements specific to their needs. Our process only reproduced existing data in different ways to meet the guidelines and requirements of 44 CFR 201.6. All data layers utilized are identified within the various sections of this document should reviewers wish greater clarification and information. Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following: • Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study • Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data • The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard • Mitigation measures already employed • The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event. These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate. The results do not predict precise results and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, Mason County and its planning partners will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Risk Assessment Methodology Bridgeview Consulting 4-11 September 2023 Some assumptions were made by the planning partnership in an effort to capture as much data as necessary to supplant any significant data gaps. One example of this is the valuation for structures within the assessed data, most commonly as it relates to the general building stock. For structures for which data was not provided, the missing information was determined using averages of similar types of structures, determining square footage and applying a multiplier. This process is identified in the Hazus User’s Guide. Some hazards, such as earthquake, are pre-loaded with scientifically determined scenarios which are used during the modeling process. This does not allow for manipulation of the data as with other hazards, such as flood. In the case of earthquake, greater reliance existed on the use of the Hazus default data, which is known to be less accurate, most often causing higher loss values. Therefore, while loss estimates are provided, they should be viewed with this flaw in mind. A much more in- depth scientific analysis is necessary to rely on this type of data with a high degree of accuracy. Readers should view this document as a baseline or starting point, and information should be further studied and analyzed by scientists and other subject matter experts in specific hazard fields. Bridgeview Consulting 5-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 5. DROUGHT 5.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation resulting from an unusual weather pattern. If the weather pattern lasts a short time (a few weeks or a couple of months), the drought is considered short-term. If the weather pattern becomes entrenched and the precipitation deficits last for several months or years, the drought is considered to be long- term. It is possible for a region to experience a long-term circulation pattern that produces drought, and to have short-term changes in this long-term pattern that result in short-term wet spells. Likewise, it is possible for a long-term wet circulation pattern to be interrupted by short-term weather spells that result in short-term drought. Drought is a prolonged period of dryness severe enough to reduce soil moisture, water, and snow levels below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and economic systems. Droughts are a natural part of the climate cycle. For this plan, the County has elected to use Washington’s statutory definition of drought (RCW Chapter 43.83B.400), which is based on both of the following conditions occurring: • The water supply for the area is below 75 percent of normal. • Water uses and users in the area will likely incur undue hardships because of the water shortage. 5.2 HAZARD PROFILE 5.2.1 Extent and Location Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, depending upon its severity, although it typically does not result in loss of life or damage to property, as do other natural disasters. The National Drought Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts: • Agricultural—Drought threatens crops that rely on natural precipitation, while also increasing the potential for infestation. • Water supply—Drought threatens supplies of water for irrigated crops, for communities and for fish and salmon and other species of wildlife. • Fire hazard—Drought increases the threat of wildfires from dry conditions in forest and rangelands. In Washington, where hydroelectric power plants generate nearly three-quarters of the electricity produced, drought also threatens the supply of electricity. Unlike most disasters, droughts normally occur slowly but last a long time. Drought conditions occur every few years in Washington. DEFINITIONS Drought—The cumulative impacts of several dry years on water users and agricultural producers. It can include deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies and cause impacts to health, well-being, and quality of life. Hydrological Drought— Deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. Socioeconomic Drought— Drought impacts on health, well-being, and quality of life. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-2 September 2023 On average, the nationwide annual impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They occur primarily in the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts. Drought affects groundwater sources, but generally not as quickly as surface water supplies, although groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. About 16,000 drinking water systems in Washington get water from the ground; these systems serve about 5.2 million people. Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams when steam flows are lowest. Reduced water levels in wells also means that the wells are subject to saltwater intrusion. Much of the area depends on well water, which currently supplies a large portion of Mason County residents with their drinking water. Drought conditions within the planning area increase pressure on local aquifers, with increased pumping potentially resulting in saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. This, in turn, could cause restrictions on economic growth and development. A drought directly or indirectly impacts all people in affected areas. A drought can result in farmers not being able to plant crops or the failure of planted crops. This results in loss of work for farm workers and those in related food processing jobs. Other water- or electricity-dependent industries are commonly forced to shut down all or a portion of their facilities, resulting in further layoffs. A drought can also harm recreational companies that use water (e.g., swimming pools, water parks, and river rafting companies) as well as landscape and nursery businesses because people will not invest in new plants if water is not available to sustain them. With much of Washington’s energy coming from hydroelectric plants, a drought means less inexpensive elec tricity coming from dams and probably higher electric bills. All people would pay more for water if utilities increase their rates. This has become an issue within Washington State as a whole previously, when a lack of snow pack has decreased hydroelectric generating capacity, and raised the electric prices, impacting residents. 5.2.2 Previous Occurrences The County has never been declared in a federal disaster declaration related to drought. As of this 2023 update, the County’s water supply was above average (see Figure 5-1).6 However, in the past century, Washington has experienced a number of drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season. Table 5-1 identifies drought occurrences within the State of Washington. Figure 5-1 identifies precipitation outlooks in Mason County as of this 2023 update. Figure 5-2 identifies drought instances during the period 2015 through 2022 in Mason County. 6 NOAA Drought.gov. Accessed 27 Jan 2023. Available online at: Mason County Conditions | Drought.gov Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-3 September 2023 Figure 5-1 Water Supply in Mason County January 2023 Figure 5-2 Historical Drought Conditions in Mason County 2015-2022 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-4 September 2023 Table 5-1 Drought Occurrences July-August 1902 No measurable rainfall in Western Washington August 1919 Drought and hot weather occurred in Western Washington July – August 1921 Drought in all agricultural sections. June-August 1922 The statewide precipitation averaged 0.10 inches. March – August 1924 Lack of soil moisture retarded germination of spring wheat. July 1925 Drought occurred in Washington July 21-August 25, 1926 Little or no rainfall was reported. June 1928-March 1929 Most stations averaged less than 20 percent of normal rainfall for August and September and less than 60 percent for nine months. July – August 1930 Drought affected the entire state. Most weather stations averaged 10 percent or less of normal precipitation. April 1934-March 1937 The longest drought in the region’s history – the driest periods were April-August 1934, September-December 1935, and July-January 1936-1937. May – September 1938 Driest growing season in Western Washington. 1952 Every month was below normal precipitation except June. The hardest hit areas were Puget Sound and the central Cascades. January – May 1964 Drought covered the southwestern part of the state. Precipitation was less than 40 percent of normal. Spring 1966 Drought throughout Washington June – August 1967 Drought throughout Washington January – August 1973 Dry in the Cascades. October 1976 – September 1977 Worst drought in Pacific Northwest history. Below normal precipitation in Olympia, Seattle, and Yakima. Crop yields were below normal and ski resorts closed for much of the 1976-77 season. 2001 Governor Declared Drought Governor declared statewide Stage 2 drought in response to severe dry spell. June – September 2003 Federal disaster number 1499 assigned to 15 counties. The original disaster was for flooding but several jurisdictions were included because of previous drought conditions. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-5 September 2023 Table 5-1 Drought Occurrences March 10, 2005 Governor Declared Drought Precipitation levels was below or much below the average from November through February, with extremely warm fall and winter months, adversely affecting the state’s mountain snow pack. A warm mid-January removed much of the remaining snow pack, with March projections at 66 percent of normal, indicating that Washington might be facing a drought as bad as, or worse, than the 1977 drought. Late March rains filled reservoirs to about 95 percent. State legislature approved $12 million supplemental budget that provided funds to buy water, improve wells, and implement other emergency water supply projects. Wildfires numbers was about 75 percent of previous five years, but acreage burned was three times greater. 2015 2015 was the year of the “snowpack drought.” Washington State had normal or near-normal precipitation over the 2014-2015 winter season. However, October through March the average statewide temperature was 40.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 4.7 degrees above the 20th century long-term average and ranking as the warmest October through March on record. Washington experienced record low snowpack because mountain precipitation that normally fell as snow instead fell as rain. The snowpack deficit then was compounded as precipitation began to lag behind normal levels in early spring and into the summer. With record spring and summer temperatures, and little to no precipitation over many parts of the state, the snowpack drought morphed into a traditional precipitation drought, causing injury to crops and aquatic species. Many rivers and streams experienced record low flows. 2019 Governor Declared Drought On May 20, 2019, Governor Jay Inslee issued an emergency drought declaration in 24 watersheds statewide. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, very dry conditions over several months and a diminished snowpack impacted streamflow, which were identified to be well below normal conditions across most of the state.7 Watersheds west of the Cascades crest, which are more rain dependent than rivers on the east side, flowed at much below normal levels. Some rivers set record daily lows for historic May flows. Statewide, at the time the declaration was ordered, only four (4) percent of rivers were flowing at levels above normal. While stream flows were strong in the southeast corner of the state, 27 out of 62 watersheds were declared for drought as of May 20, 2019. 2020 Several months in a row of below-average precipitation brought drought to the Pacific Northwest in spring 2020, with only the northwestern corner of Washington, around Seattle, free of any kind of drought or abnormal dryness. As the region’s dry summer approached, the winter and spring 7 Source: https://waterwatch.usgs.gov/?m=real&r=wa Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-6 September 2023 Table 5-1 Drought Occurrences precipitation deficits pose a threat to livestock operators, farmers, and fish, and heighten the risk of wildfires. In this event, while precipitation falling as snow was initially at normal levels, the higher-than-average temperatures caused rapid snow melt, with runoff coming earlier in the year causing high rates of soil moisture evaporation. 2021 Dept. of Ecology issued Emergency Drought Declaration The spring of 2021 was the second driest on record, and then an unprecedented late- June heatwave smashed temperature records across the state. In response, Washington State Department of Ecology issued an emergency drought declaration in July 2021 covering 96 percent of the state. Only Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma – cities with ample water storage – escaped the designation. 2022 Historically low water levels in several areas closed most recreational fishing on most streams of the Olympic Peninsula. 5.2.3 Severity Droughts impact individuals (farm owners, tenants, and farm laborers), the agricultural industry, and other agriculture-related sectors. Lack of snow pack has forced ski resorts into bankruptcy. There is increased danger of forest and wildland fires. Millions of board feet of timber have been lost. Loss of forests and trees increases erosion, causing serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power development by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs, and rivers. The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. Droughts are not usually associated with direct impacts on people or property, but they can have significant impacts on agriculture, wildlife, and fishing, which can impact people indirectly. When measuring the severity of droughts, analysts typically look at economic impacts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure drought impacts and severity to map their extent and locations. • The Palmer Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale and is used to quantify drought’s impacts on agriculture during the growing season. • The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale. Figure 5-3 shows this index for August 2022. • The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop and it takes longer to recover from them. The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index, another long-term index, was developed to quantify hydrological effects. This index responds more slowly to changing conditions than the Palmer Drought Index. • While the Palmer indices consider precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff, the Standardized Precipitation Index considers only precipitation. In this index, a value of zero indicates the median precipitation amount; the index is negative for drought and positive for wet conditions. The Standardized Precipitation Index is computed for time scales ranging from one month to 24 months. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-7 September 2023 • The Palmer Drought Index measures the duration and intensity of long-term drought- inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during a given month is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Weather patterns can change quickly from a long-term drought pattern to a long-term wet pattern, and this index can respond fairly rapidly. These indices change very frequently. The data contained in this profile frequently changes, and is meant to provide only a brief overview. Reviewers wishing additional or more current data should check NOAA’s website at Historical Palmer Drought Indices | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov) Figure 5-3 Palmer Z Index Short-Term Drought Conditions (August 2022) 5.2.4 Frequency Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is never the result of a single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature; these include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air resulting in less precipitation. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-8 September 2023 In temperate regions, including Washington, long-range forecasts of drought have limited reliability. In the tropics, empirical relationships have been demonstrated between precipitation and El Niño events, but few such relationships have been demonstrated above 30º north latitude. Meteorologists do not believe that reliable forecasts are attainable at this time a season or more in advance for temperate regions. A great deal of research has been conducted in recent years on the role of interacting systems in explaining regional and even global patterns of climatic variability. These patterns tend to recur periodically with enough frequency and with similar characteristics over a sufficient length of time that they offer opportunities to improve the ability for long-range climate prediction. However, too many variables exist in determining the frequency with which a drought will occur. Reliable forecasts of drought are not attainable for temperate regions of the world more than a season in advance. However, based on a 100-year history with drought, the state as a whole can expect severe or extreme drought at least 5 percent of the time in the future, with most of eastern Washington experiencing severe or extreme drought about 10 to 15 percent of the time.” (EMD, 2012). With changing climatic conditions, the State’s 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan indicates that the “state may likely experience one or two major drought events,” impacting 75 percent of the State area, and approximately 21 percent of the State’s population, which resides in areas with medium or high drought exposure. Based on the State’s 2018 HMP, Mason County has a low exposure rate (WA EMD HMP, 2018). 5.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 5.3.1 Overview Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provide services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental, and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity associated with the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand. All people, property and environments in the planning area could be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought. Areas densely wooded, especially areas in parks throughout the County which host campers, increase the exposure to forest fires. Additional exposure comes in the form of economic impact should a prolonged drought occur that would impact fishing, recreation, agriculture, and timber harvesting—primary sources of income in the planning area. Prolonged drought would also decrease capacity within the watersheds, thereby reducing fish runs and, potentially, spawning areas. Warning Time A drought is not a sudden-onset hazard. Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods, providing for some advance notice. In many instances, annual situations of low water levels are identified months in advance (e.g., snow pack at lower levels are identified during winter months), allowing for advanced planning for water conservation. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-9 September 2023 Meteorological drought is the result of many causes, including global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast resulting in less precipitation. Only general warning can take place, due to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions. It is often difficult to recognize a drought before being in the middle of it. Droughts do not occur spontaneously, they evolve over time as certain conditions are met. Scientists do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations. Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Weather anomalies may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depend on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of weather systems on the global scale. In temperate regions such as Washington, long-range forecasts of drought have limited reliability. Meteorologists do not believe that reliable forecasts are attainable at this time a season or more in advance for temperate regions. 5.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety Wildfires are often associated with drought. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends. This increases the risk to the health and safety of the residents within the planning area, especially those in wildland-urban interface areas. Smoke and particles embedded within the smoke are of significant concern for the elderly and very young, especially those with breathing problems. The County and its jurisdictions have the ability to minimize impacts on residents and water consumers within the planning area should several consecutive dry years occur. 5.3.3 Impact on Property No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some may become vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Droughts can also have significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. However, these impacts are not considered critical in planning for impacts from the drought hazard. 5.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities will continue to be operational during a drought unless impacted by fire. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant. 5.3.5 Impact on Economy Economic impact from a drought is associated with different aspects, including potential loss of agri- and aqua-cultural production. The County’s economy relies heavily on aquaculture. Also ranking high with respect to agricultural dependency is Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops, ranking fourth statewide. Combined, the impact from a drought situation on the County’s agri- and aqua-cultural markets for economic sustainability could be high. One of Mason County’s largest employers, Taylor Shellfish, Inc., is also one of the largest producers of aquaculture shellfish. Drought situations such that have previously occurred statewide which impacted the fishing industry could Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-10 September 2023 have a negative impact on both Christmas tree production – another of the County’s leading economic industries, and the shellfish industry. Additional economic impact stems from the potential loss of critical infrastructure due to fire damage and impacts on industries that depend on water for their business, such as fishing industries, water- based recreational activities, and public facilities and recreational areas. Problems of domestic and municipal water supplies have historically been corrected by building another reservoir, a larger pipeline, new well, or some other facility. With drought conditions increasing pressure on aquifers and increased pumping, which can result in saltwater intrusion into fresh water aquifers, resultant reductions or restrictions on economic growth and development could occur. Given potential political issues, a drought situation, if prolonged, could restrict building within specific areas due to lack of supporting infrastructure, thereby impacting the tax base and economy of the region by limiting growth. In addition, impact to or the lack of hydroelectric generating capacity associated with drought conditions as a result of reduced precipitation levels could raise electric prices throughout the region. 5.3.6 Impact on Environment Environmental losses from drought are associated with aquatic life, plants, animals, wildlife habitat, air and water quality, forest fires, landscape quality, biodiversity, and soil erosion. Some effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal after the drought. Other effects linger or even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes, and vegetation, but many species will eventually recover from this effect. Degraded landscape quality, including soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity. Life- cycles for fish spawning in the area would have environmental impacts years into the future. Public awareness and concern for environmental quality has led to greater attention to these effects. Drought conditions within the planning area could increase the demand for water supplies. Water shortages would have an adverse impact on the environment, relied upon by the planning partnership, causing social and political conflicts. If such conditions persisted for several years, the economy of Mason County could experience setbacks, especially in water dependent industries. 5.3.7 Impact from Climate Change The impact from climate change on drought will be significant. With historic records demonstrating increased temperature rise, the results will only further exacerbate drought stations. Ocean acidification has also been noted. Drought also plays a significant role in the wildfire system, fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. Climate change will further change the use of water available for fish spawning due to increased temperatures. It will also impact availability for agricultural growers for their crops; with decreased precipitation in the form of snow, water levels will fall, creating water shortages for use by consumers as drinking water, irrigation and watering of livestock, and firefighters to control and fight fires. 5.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Mason County and the City of Shelton have a relatively high amount of land available for future construction. With the anticipated increase in population, the rezoning of land from agricultural to residential would have the propensity to increase water demands, as well as increase demands on Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-11 September 2023 other infrastructure, and increase the potential for wildfires. The City of Shelton and Mason County have established comprehensive plans that include policies directing land use and dealing with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources, as well as fire regulations. These plans provide the capability at the local municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of drought. All planning partners reviewed their general plans under the capability assessments performed for this effort. Deficiencies identified by these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase the capability to deal with future trends in development. The planning area continues to move forward in developing policies directing land use and dealing with zoning, density and permitting for any new development. This will provide the capability to protect future development from the impacts of drought. 5.5 ISSUES An extreme drought could impact the region with little warning. Combinations of low precipitation and unusually high temperatures could occur over several consecutive years, especially in response to climate change. Intensified by such conditions, extreme wildfires could break out throughout the area, increasing the need for water. Surrounding communities, also in drought conditions, could increase their demand for water, causing social and political conflicts. Low water tables could increase issues of life, safety, and health, while also impacting the economy both for loss of potential agricultural income, but also with respect to decreased ability to construct new housing due to lack of ability to provide water. If such conditions persisted for several years, the economy of the region could experience setbacks, especially in water dependent industries. The planning team has identified the following drought-related issues: • The need for alternative water sources should a prolonged drought occur; • Use of groundwater recharge to stabilize the groundwater supply; • The probability of increased drought frequencies and durations due to climate change; • The promotion of active water conservation even during non-drought periods; • The potential impact on businesses in the area; • The potential impact on the livelihood of those employed in industries that could be impacted by drought, such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, and tourism. 5.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from Drought throughout the area is highly likely. The area has previously experienced drought conditions. As of this 2023 update, the State has experienced some of its driest summers on record, as well as setting high-temperature records. With anticipated increase in temperatures as a result of climate change expected to continue, drought situations will only intensify. With the planning area’s dependence on aqua- and agri-culture, there is a significant potential economic loss in the region. In addition, higher temperatures anticipated with climate change would increase vulnerability of the population due to excessive heat, while also potentially impacting power supplies at the hydro-dams in the area. With a higher number of aged population than that of the remaining state, as well as older residential structures that may not have air conditioning or air purification Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Drought Bridgeview Consulting 5-12 September 2023 systems in place, this would increase the potential vulnerability. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 2.6, with overall vulnerability determined to be a medium level. Bridgeview Consulting 6-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 6. EARTHQUAKE An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in the earth’s crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Its epicenter is the point on the earth’s surface directly above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The location of an earthquake is described by the geographic position of its epicenter and by its focal depth. Earthquakes many times occur along a fault, which is a fracture in the earth’s crust. 6.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds. Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. Active faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). Potentially active faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. Faults are more likely to have earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve accumulating tectonic stresses. A direct relationship exists between a fault’s length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. In some areas, smaller, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant as a result of the fault’s proximity to the area. In contrast, large regional faults can generate great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, may result in only moderate shaking in the area. It is generally agreed that three source zones exist for Pacific Northwest quakes: a shallow (crustal) zone; the Cascadia Subduction Zone; and a deep, intraplate “Benioff” zone. These are shown in Figure 6-1. More than 90 percent of Pacific Northwest earthquakes occur along the boundary between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. DEFINITIONS Earthquake—The shaking of the ground caused by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the earth or a contact zone between tectonic plates. Epicenter—The point on the earth’s surface directly above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The location of an earthquake is commonly described by the geographic position of its epicenter and by its focal depth. Fault—A fracture in the earth’s crust along which two blocks of the crust have slipped with respect to each other. Focal Depth—The depth from the earth’s surface to the hypocenter. Hypocenter—The region underground where an earthquake’s energy originates Liquefaction— Loosely packed, water-logged sediments losing their strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-2 September 2023 An earthquake will generally produce the strongest ground motions near the epicenter (the point on the ground above where the earthquake initiated) with the intensity of ground motions diminishing with increasing distance from the epicenter. The intensity of ground shaking at a given site depends on four main factors: • Earthquake magnitude • Earthquake epicenter • Earthquake depth • Soil or rock conditions at the site, which may amplify or de-amplify earthquake ground motions. Figure 6-1 Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest For any given earthquake, there will be contours of varying intensity of ground shaking with distance from the epicenter. The intensity will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter, and often in an irregular pattern, not simply in concentric circles. The irregularity is caused by soil conditions, the complexity of earthquake fault rupture patterns, and directionality in the dispersion of earthquake energy. 6.1.1 Earthquake Classifications Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: By the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude (size or power based on the Richter Scale); or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity (based on the Mercalli Scale). Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake. It is determined by the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments. Magnitude is represented by a single, instrumentally determined value for each earthquake event. Intensity indicates how the earthquake is felt at various distances from the earthquake epicenter. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 September 2023 Magnitude Currently the most commonly used magnitude scale is the moment magnitude (Mw) scale, with the follow classifications of magnitude: • Great—Mw > 8 • Major—Mw = 7.0—7.9 • Strong—Mw = 6.0—6.9 • Moderate—Mw = 5.0—5.9 • Light—Mw = 4.0—4.9 • Minor—Mw = 3.0—3.9 • Micro—Mw < 3 Estimates of moment magnitude roughly match the local magnitude scale (ML) commonly called the Richter scale. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike other magnitude scales, it does not saturate at the upper end. That is, there is no value beyond which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment magnitude is now the most often used estimate of large earthquake magnitudes. Intensity There are many measures of the severity or intensity of earthquake ground motions. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI) (Table 6-1) was widely used beginning in the early 1900s. MMI is a descriptive, qualitative scale that relates severity of ground motions to the types of damage experienced. MMI values range from I to XII (USGS, 1989). Table 6-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale Descriptions MMI VALUE DESCRIPTION I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. III Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it is an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building. Standing cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-4 September 2023 Table 6-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale Descriptions MMI VALUE DESCRIPTION VII Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight in well - built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures. Some chimneys broken. VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. X Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. More accurate, quantitative measures of the intensity of ground shaking have largely replaced the MMI and are used in this mitigation plan. These scales use terms that can be physically measured with seismometers, such as the acceleration, velocity, or displacement (movement) of the ground. The intensity may also be measured as a function of the frequency of earthquake waves propagating through the earth. In the same way that sound waves contain a mix of low-, moderate- and high- frequency sound waves, earthquake waves contain ground motions of various frequencies. The behavior of buildings and other structures depends substantially on the vibration frequencies of the building or structure versus the frequency of earthquake waves. Earthquake ground motions also include both horizontal and vertical components. Ground Motion Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded over a time period of interest. A common physical measure of the intensity of earthquake ground shaking, and the one used in this mitigation plan, is peak ground acceleration (PGA). PGA is a measure of the intensity of shaking relative to the acceleration of gravity (g). For example, an acceleration of 1.0 g PGA is an extremely strong ground motion, which does occur near the epicenter of large earthquakes. With a vertical acceleration of 1.0 g, objects are thrown into the air. With a horizontal acceleration of 1.0 g, objects accelerate sideways at the same rate as if they had been dropped from the ceiling. A PGA equal to 10% g means that the ground acceleration is 10 percent that of gravity, and so on. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-5 September 2023 Damage levels experienced in an earthquake vary with the intensity of ground shaking and with the seismic capacity of structures. The following generalized observations provide qualitative statements about the likely extent of damage for earthquakes with various levels of ground shaking (PGA) at a given site: • Ground motions of only 1% g or 2% g are widely felt by people; hanging plants and lamps swing strongly, but damage levels, if any, are usually very low. • Ground motions below about 10% g usually cause only slight damage. • Ground motions between about 10% g and 30% g may cause minor to moderate damage in well-designed buildings, with higher levels of damage in more vulnerable buildings. At this level of ground shaking, some poorly built buildings may be subject to collapse. • Ground motions above about 30% g may cause significant damage in well -designed buildings and very high levels of damage (including collapse) in poorly designed buildings. • Ground motions above about 50% g may cause significant damage in most buildings, even those designed to resist seismic forces. PGA is the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” (e.g. single- family dwellings). Longer period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). The amount of earthquake damage and the size of the geographic area affected generally increase with earthquake magnitude: • Earthquakes below M5 are not likely to cause significant damage, even near the epicenter. • Earthquakes between about M5 and M6 are likely to cause moderate damage near the epicenter. • Earthquakes of about M6.5 or greater (e.g., the 2001 Nisqually earthquake in Washington) can cause major damage, with damage usually concentrated fairly near the epicenter. • Larger earthquakes of M7+ cause damage over increasingly wider geographic areas with the potential for very high levels of damage near the epicenter. • Great earthquakes with M8+ can cause major damage over wide geographic areas. • An M9 mega-quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone could affect the entire Pacific Northwest from British Columbia, through Washington and Oregon, and as far south as Northern California, with the highest levels of damage nearest the coast. Table 6-2 lists damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-6 September 2023 Table 6-2 Comparison Of Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Modified Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGAa Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g) I Not Felt None None <0.17% II-III Weak None None 0.17%—1.4% IV Light None None 1.4%—3.9% V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9%—9.2% VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2%—18% VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18%—34% VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34%—65% IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65%—124% X—XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124% a. PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010 6.1.2 Effect of Soil Types Liquefaction is a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction generally occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 6-3 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. Areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking and susceptible to liquefaction have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. Table 6-3 NEHRP Soil Classification System NEHRP Soil Type Description Mean Shear Velocity to 30 Meters (m/s) A Hard Rock 1,500 B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500 C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760 D Stiff Soil 180-360 E Soft Clays < 180 F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-7 September 2023 Table 6-4 Acres of NEHRP Soil Classification by Type Countywide NEHRP Soil Type Description Mean Shear Velocity to 30 Meters (m/s) # of Acres w/n Mason County # of Acres w/in Shelton # of Acres w/in Allyn # of Acres w/in Belfair A Hard Rock 1,500 0 0 0 0 B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500 220,707.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760 259,940.8 1,659.1 869.9 1,513.8 D Stiff Soil 180-360 108,100.7 1,813.2 216.8 746.3 E Soft Clays < 180 34,397.0 236.8 216.8 32.8 F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1.3 Fault Classification The U.S. Geologic Survey defines four fault classes based on evidence of tectonic movement associated with large-magnitude earthquakes during the Quaternary period, which is the period from about 1.6 million years ago to the present: • Class A—Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of a Quaternary fault of tectonic origin, whether the fault is exposed by mapping or inferred from liquefaction or other deformational features. • Class B—Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of Quaternary deformation, but either (1) the fault might not extend deep enough to be a potential source of significant earthquakes, or (2) the currently available geologic evidence is too strong to confidently assign the feature to Class C but not strong enough to assign it to Class A. • Class C—Geologic evidence is insufficient to demonstrate (1) the existence of tectonic faulting, or (2) Quaternary slip or deformation associated with the feature. • Class D—Geologic evidence demonstrates that the feature is not a tectonic fault or feature; this category includes features such as joints, landslides, erosional or fluvial scarps, or other landforms resembling fault scarps but of demonstrable non-tectonic origin. 6.2 HAZARD PROFILE Seismic-related hazards in Mason County include ground motion from shallow (less than 20 miles deep) or deep faults; liquefaction and differential settling of soil in areas with saturated sand, silt, or gravel; and tsunamis that result from seismic activities. Earthquakes also can cause damage by Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-8 September 2023 triggering landslides or bluff failure. The Puget Sound region is entirely within Seismic Risk Zone 3, requiring that buildings be designed to withstand major earthquakes measuring 7.5 in magnitude. It is anticipated, however, that earthquakes caused from subduction plate stress can reach a magnitude greater than 8.0. High-magnitude earthquakes are possible in Mason County when the Juan de Fuca slips beneath the North American plates. Deep zone or Benioff zone quakes have occurred within the San De Fuca plate (1949, 1965, and 2001) and can be expected in the future. 6.2.1 Extent and Location Washington State as a whole is one of the most seismically active states in United States. There are a number of faults running near or through Mason County (see Figure 6-2), including the Saddle Mountain East Fault, Frigid Creek Fault, and Canyon Creek Fault, which are located north and west of Hoodsport near the Olympic National Forest (USGS, 2015a). The Saddle Mountain fault was first recognized in the early 1970’s. Drowned trees and trench excavations demonstrate that the fault produced a MW 6.5-7.0 earthquake 1,000-1,300 years ago, likely occurring with the MW 7.5 Seattle fault earthquake 1,100 years ago. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-9 September 2023 Figure 6-2 Mason County Faults Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-10 September 2023 Hazard Mapping Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood, landslide, or wildfire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following factors: • Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations) • Liquefaction (soil instability) • Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically). Mapping that shows the impacts of these components was used to assess the risk of earthquakes within the planning area. While the impacts from each of these components can build upon each other during an earthquake event, the mapping looks at each component individually. The mapping used in this assessment is described below. Shake Maps A shake map is a representation of ground shaking produced by an earthquake (Peak Ground Acceleration). The information it presents is different from the earthquake magnitude and epicenter that are released after an earthquake because shake maps focus on the ground shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than the parameters describing the earthquake source. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth’s crust. A shake map shows the extent and variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion recorded on seismic sensors, with interpolation where data are lacking and site-specific corrections. Color-coded intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. Two types of shake map are typically generated from the data: • A probabilistic seismic hazard map shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree could occur. The maps are expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, such as the 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. Hazard maps for the 100-year and 500-year probabilistic earthquakes are shown on Figure 6-3 and 6-4, and are carried over from the 2018 plan. • Earthquake scenario maps describe the expected ground motions and effects of hypothetical large earthquakes for a region. Maps of these scenarios can be used to support all phases of emergency management. Three scenarios were carried forward from the 2018 plan: – Canyon River (Price Lake) Scenario (see Figure 6-5) – Nisqually Fault Scenario (see Figure 6-6) – Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake (see Figure 6-7). Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-11 September 2023 Figure 6-3 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Event Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-12 September 2023 Figure 6-4 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Event Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 September 2023 Figure 6-5 Canyon River (Price Lake) Scenario Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-14 September 2023 Figure 6-6 Nisqually Fault Scenario Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-15 September 2023 Figure 6-7 Cascadia M9.0 Fault Scenario (Source: FEMA Risk Map, 2017) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-16 September 2023 NEHRP Soil Maps NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain low-magnitude ground shaking without much effect. The areas that are most commonly affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E, and F. Figure 6-8 shows NEHRP soil classifications in Mason County. Figure 6-8 NEHRP Soils Liquefaction Maps Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground liquefies, sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D, E and F are susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come to the surface through cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with it and creating sand boils. Figure 6-9 shows liquefaction susceptibility throughout the County. Table 6-5 identifies the acres of the various susceptible liquefiable soil types countywide. Potential structure losses associated with the various liquefaction zones in Mason County are identified in Table 6-6. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-17 September 2023 Figure 6-9 Liquefaction Susceptibility Zones Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-18 September 2023 Table 6-5 Liquefiable Soils By Acres Liquefaction Susceptibility Type/Zone # of Acres w/n Mason County # of Acres within Unincorporated Mason County # of Acres w/n Shelton # of Acres w/n Allyn # of Acres w/n Belfair Su s c e p t i b l e High 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moderate to High 25,547.2 25,301.8 215.6 34.3 0.0 Moderate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low to Moderate 4,910.2 4,910.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low 3,651.1 3,405.2 0.0 118.9 127.0 Very Low to Low 36,906.2 36,189.0 0.0 97.9 619.3 Very Low 322,574.0 316,687.9 3,441.2 869.9 1,513.8 No t S u s c e p t i b l e Peat 786.0 753.1 0.0 0.0 32.8 Bedrock 220,707.8 220,707.8, 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-19 September 2023 Table 6-6 Potential Critical Facility Impact From Liquefaction Zones Li q u e f a c t i o n Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Zo n e s Go v e r n m e n t Fu n c t i o n Co m m u n i c a t i o n s Me d i c a l Ha z a r d o u s Ma t e r i a l s Pr o t e c t i v e Se r v i c e s Po w e r Sh e l t e r Ot h e r (L a n d f i l l ) Wa t e r Wa s t e w a t e r Total High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moderate to High 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 17 0 20 Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low to Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Low 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 Very Low to Low 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 9 3 16 Very Low 19 1 1 4 41 16 2 5 138 20 247 Not Susceptible to Liquefaction Bedrock 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Peat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.2.2 Previous Occurrences Mason County is subject to Modified Mercalli Intensity VII or IX from several sources: the Canyon River-Price Lake fault zone (Walsh and Logan, 2007; Barnett and others, 2012), which generated earthquakes about 1,000, 1,800, and 3,500 years ago; the Seattle and Tacoma faults, which generated large earthquakes about 1,000 years ago (Nelson and others, 2003; Sherrod and others, 2004); and the Cascadia subduction zone, which generated large magnitude earthquakes as recently as a few hundred years ago. Abundant physical evidence for an earthquake in AD 1700 on the Cascadia subduction zone includes evidence for abrupt tectonic subsidence. This event was probably about an M9 and is the largest earthquake in the Pacific Northwest in the historic or paleoseismic record. The evidence for this earthquake is documented in Atwater and others (2005) and Goldfinger and others (2012). This fault has an average recurrence interval of approximately 500 years for earthquakes of about M9, making it the most active fault that can affect Mason County. Significant losses would also result from repeat of a Benioff Zone earthquake such as the Nisqually earthquake. These earthquakes can be larger than the M6.8 Nisqually earthquake, and the project team modeled an M7.2 scenario in about the same place (FEMA Risk Report, 2017). Based on geologic evidence along the Washington coast, the Cascadia Subduction Zone has ruptured and created tsunamis at least seven times in the past 3,500 years and has a considerable range in recurrence intervals, from as little as 140 years between events to more than 1,000 years. The last Cascadia Subduction Zone-related earthquake is believed to have occurred on January 26, 1700, and researchers predict a 10 to 14 percent chance that another could occur in the next 50 years. Table 6- Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-20 September 2023 7 lists past seismic events that have affected the areas in and around Mason County.8 Those which directly impacted Mason County are highlighted. No major earthquakes have occurred in the County since completion of the 2018 plan. The County has received two disaster declarations as a result of earthquake damage – the Nisqually Earthquake, which occurred on February 28, 2001, and the May 11, 1965 earthquake. 8 PNSN, 2017 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-21 September 2023 Table 6-7 Historical Earthquakes Impacting The Planning Area Year Magnitude Epicenter Type 2/28/2001 (DR 1361) 6.8 Olympia (Nisqually) Benioff 6/10/2001 5.0 Matlock Benioff 7/3/1999 5.8 8.0 km N of Satsop Benioff 6/23/1997 4.7 Bremerton Shallow Crustal 5/3/1996 5.5 Duvall Shallow Crustal 1/29/1995 5.1 Seattle-Tacoma Shallow Crustal 2/14/1981 5.5 Mt. St. Helens (Ash) Crustal 9/9/76 4.5 Union Benioff Zone (28 miles deep) 5/11/1965 (DR 196) 6.6 18.3 KM N of Tacoma Benioff 4/29/1965 6.5 12 miles North of Tacoma Benioff 1/13/1949 7.0 12.3 KM ENE of Olympia Benioff 6/23/1946 7.3 Strait of Georgia Benioff 2/14/1946 6.3 Puget Sound Benioff 4/1945 5.7 Northbend (8 miles south/southeast) Unknown 1939 5.8 Puget Sound – Near Vashon Island Unknown 1932 5.3 Central Cascades Unknown 1/23/1920 5.5 Puget Sound Unknown 12/6/1918 7.0 Vancouver Island Unknown 8/18/1915 5.6 North Cascades Unknown 1/11/1909 6.0 Puget Sound Unknown 4/30/1882 5.8 Olympia area Unknown 12/15/1872 6.8 Pacific Coast Unknown 6.2.3 Severity Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors over several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because the shocks shake, damage or demolish buildings and other structures. Disruption of communications, electrical power supplies and gas, sewer and water lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam failures, landslides, or releases of hazardous material, compounding their disastrous effects. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, large regional faults can generate earthquakes of great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-22 September 2023 USGS ground motion maps based on current information about fault zones show the PGA that has a certain probability (2 or 10 percent) of being exceeded in a 50-year period. The PGA is measured in %g. Figure 6-10 shows the PGA with a 2 percent exceedance chance in 50 years in Washington. Effects of a major earthquake in the Puget Sound basin area could be catastrophic, providing the worst-case disaster short of drought-induced wild fire sweeping through a suburban area. Hundreds of residents could be killed, and a multitude of others left homeless. Although recorded damage sustained to date in Mason County has been relatively minor and has been restricted to some incidence of cracked foundations, walls and chimneys, and damage to private wells, depending on the time of day and time of year, a catastrophic earthquake could cause hundreds of injuries, deaths, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage. 6.2.4 Frequency Scientists are currently developing methods to more accurately determine when an earthquake will occur. Recent advancements in determining the probability of an earthquake in a given period use a log-normal, Brownian Passage Time, or other probability distribution in which the probability of an event depends on the time since the last event. Such time-dependent models produce results broadly consistent with the elastic rebound theory of earthquakes. The USGS and others are beginning to develop such products as new geologic and seismic information regarding the dates of previous events along faults becomes more and more available (USGS, 2015a). Scientists currently estimate that a Magnitude-9 earthquake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone occurs about once every 500 years. The last one was in 1700. Paleoseismic investigations have identified 41 Cascadia Subduction Zone interface earthquakes over the past 10,000 years, which corresponds to one earthquake about every 250 years. About half were M9.0 or greater earthquakes that represented full rupture of the fault zone from Northern California to British Columbia. The other half were M8+ earthquakes that ruptured only the southern portion of the subduction zone. Figure 6-10 PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-23 September 2023 The 300+ years since the last major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake is longer than the average of about 250 years for M8 or greater and shorter than some of the intervals between M9.0 earthquakes. Scientists currently estimate the frequency of deep earthquakes similar to the 1965 Magnitude-6.5 Seattle-Tacoma event and the 2001 Magnitude-6.8 Nisqually event as about once every 35 years. The USGS estimates an 84-percent chance of a Magnitude-6.5 or greater deep earthquake over the next 50 years. Scientists estimate the approximate recurrence rate of a Magnitude-6.5 or greater earthquake anywhere on a shallow fault in the Puget Sound basin to be once in about 350 years. There have been four earthquakes of less than Magnitude 5 in the past 20 years. Earthquakes on the Seattle Faults have a 2-percent probability of occurrence in 50 years. A Benioff zone earthquake has an 85 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, making it the most likely of the three types. 6.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.3.1 Overview Several faults within the planning region have the potential to cause direct impact. The area also is vulnerable to impact from an event outside the County, although the intensity of ground motions diminishes with increasing distance from the epicenter. As a result, the entire population of the planning area is exposed to both direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. The degree of direct impact (and exposure) is dependent on factors including the soil type on which homes are constructed, the proximity to fault location, the type of materials used to construct residences and facilities, etc. Indirect impacts are associated with elements such as the inability to evacuate the area as a result of earthquakes occurring in other regions of the state as well as impact on commodity flow for goods and services into the area, many of which are serviced only by one roadway in or out . Impact from other parts of the state could require shipment of supplies via a barge. Evacuation points of potential concern include: • Landslides associated with an earthquake occurring along Highway 101 and • Impact on State Route 3, which connects to Highway 101. Warning Time There is currently no reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research has developed warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes. These potential warning systems give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. The warning time is very short, but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a hazardous material they are working with, or shut down a computer system. Mason County is a licensed operator for the USGS ShakeAlert® project. MyShake delivers ShakeAlert-powered alerts across California, Oregon, and Washington for magnitude 4.5 or greater quakes to users in the areas of light to severe shaking. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-24 September 2023 6.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety The entire population of the planning area is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Two of the most vulnerable populations to a disaster incident such as this are the young and the elderly. Mason County has a fairly high population of retirees and individuals with disabilities, both higher than the state averages. The need for increased rescue efforts and/or to provide assistance to such a large population base could tax the first-responder resources in the area during an event. Although many injuries may not be life-threatening, people will require medical attention and, in many cases, hospitalization. Potential life-threatening injuries and fatalities are expected; these are likely to be at an increased level if an earthquake happens during the afternoon or early evening. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors, including the soil type their homes are constructed on, quality of construction, their proximity to fault location, etc. Whether impacted directly or indirectly, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. The number of people without power or water will be high, especially given the number of wells on which the County relies to supply water to individuals who most likely do not have generators to run pumps on the wells. This need will increase the number of individuals seeking shelter assistance. For the 2023 update, due to structure and time constraints, and the relatively limited growth within the area (both population and structure), the Planning Team determined that the Hazus model runs for the various scenarios and probabilistic events developed in 2018 would be utilized for this update. As such, based on the 2018 Hazus outputs, analysis for the 100-year probabilistic earthquake indicates that 21 people will seek temporary shelters, while 31 households will be displaced due to the earthquake. Analysis for the 500-year probabilistic earthquake indicates that 207 people will seek temporary shelters, while 302 households will be displaced due to the earthquake. For the Cascadia M9.0 scenario, the model indicates that 155 households will be displ aced, with 113 individuals seeking temporary shelter. It should be noted that the 100- and 500-year probabilistic events utilized Hazus 4.0. For the Cascadia event, Hazus 3.2 was utilized, which is presumed to be less accurate than Hazus 4.0. It is important to remember that these are planning numbers only based on impact to structures. In many instances, people will shelter with family and friends after such an event, and therefore the numbers may be significantly off. 6.3.3 Impact on Property There are over 33,680 buildings in the planning area, with an estimated total replacement value over $4.0 billion. Most of the buildings are residential, and most of the building stock is of considerable age and not supported by building codes which increase resilience to seismic events. Portions of these buildings are constructed out of unreinforced masonry; many have chimneys that may be in need of repair, and many, because of the age of the building stock, may contain some level of asbestos in building components such as the boiler room, ceiling tiles, carpeting, or glue. Since all structures in the planning area are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees (including liquefaction and landslides), these figures represent total numbers region-wide for property exposure to seismic events. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-25 September 2023 Property losses were estimated through the analysis for the 100- and 500-year probabilistic events, as well as the Cascadia, Canyon River, and Nisqually earthquake scenarios events (utilizing the 2017 structure data, USGS/Washington State Department of Natural Resources scenario catalog data, and FEMA GIS datasets). A summary of the total potential building-related losses are identified below, and in Table 6-8. These figures represent structure loss only. It should be noted that in some instances, such as with pump houses, no separate content value is associated with the structures, as the structure value is inclusive of the mechanisms affixed to the ground within those structures. TABLE 6-8 BUILDING STRUCTURE VALUES IMPACTED BY EARTHQUAKE SCENARIOS Community Total Estimated Building Value Total Number of Buildings Canyon River M7.4 Earthquake Nisqually M7.2 Earthquake Cascadia M9.0 Earthquake Unincorporated Mason County $3.3B 25,632 $221.2M $9.8M $464.4M Allyn $158.5M 1,007 $3.0M $175.0K $9.6M Belfair $68.9M 456 $2.0M $88.4K $7.6M City of Shelton $422.7M 3,279 $11.4M $460.3K $74.0M Skokomish Indian Reservation* $36.5M 381 $5.7M $121.7K $7.0M Total $4.0B 30,755 $243.3M $10.6M $562.6M *The Skokomish Tribe was not a participant in the planning process as they were developing their own plan simultaneous with the County’s effort. Data incorporated in this assessment was derived from FEMA’s Risk Map data. *Direct Economic and Social Losses utilize demographic and building square footage data to determine losses. In some instances, square footage of structures was estimated due to the lack of data. This deficiency is identified as a strategy for future plan updates. When reviewing analysis from the 100-year probabilistic event, Hazus estimates that 2,825 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 9.00 % of the buildings in the region. There are an estimated 34 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. When reviewing analysis from the 500-year probabilistic event, Hazus estimates that about 10,939 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 33.00 % of the buildings in the region. There are an estimated 1,278 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. For the Cascadia M9.0 event, Hazus estimates that about 8,268 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 25 % of the buildings in the region. There are an estimated 385 buildings that Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-26 September 2023 will be damaged beyond repair. Figure 6-11 illustrates FEMA’s output based on the 2017 RiskMap project. Figure 6-11 Mason County Earthquake Damage Based on M9.0 Cascadia Event (FEMA 2017) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-27 September 2023 Building Age Structures that are in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) of 1970 or later are generally less vulnerable to seismic damage because 1970 was when the UBC started including seismic construction standards based on regional location. This stipulated that all structures be constructed to at least seismic risk Zone 2 standards. The State of Washington adopted the UBC as its state building code in 1972, so it is assumed that buildings in the planning area built after 1972 were built in conformance with UBC seismic standards and have less vulnerability. Issues such as code enforcement and code compliance could impact this assumption. Construction material is also important when determining the potential risk to a structure. However, for planning purposes, establishing this line of demarcation can be an effective tool for estimating vulnerability. In 1994, seismic risk Zone 3 standards of the UBC went into effect in Washington, requiring all new construction to be capable of withstanding the effects of 0.3 g. More recent housing stock is in compliance with Zone 3 standards. In July 20 04, the state again upgraded the building code to follow International Building Code Standards. While the “zones” are still referenced, they are, in large part, no longer used in the capacity they once were as there can be different zones within political subdivisions, making it difficult to apply. For instance, within Washington, there are both Seismic Zones 2B and 3. Table 6-9 further discusses the timelines of the various building code standards. Chapter 3, Section 3.6.3 discusses the age of the existing building stock in place as of this 2023 update. Time Period Code Significance for Identified Time Period Pre-1974 No standardized earthquake requirements in building codes. Washington State law did not require the issuance of any building permits, or require actual building officials 1975-2003 UBC seismic construction standards were adopted in Washington. 1994-2003 Seismic Risk Zone 3 was established within the Uniform Building Code in 1994, requiring higher standards. 2004-Present Washington State upgrades its building codes to follow the International Building Code Standard. As upgrades occur, the State continues to adopt said standards. 6.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities in Mason County are exposed to the earthquake hazard. Additionally, hazardous materials releases can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation-related incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding environment. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible isolation of residences surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment. As a portion of the county is a coastal community, this is of particular concern as spills into water bodies, including the coastline or significant rivers in the area, could have devastating impact. Additionally, the potential for landslide- Table 6-9 Timeline of Building Code Standards Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-28 September 2023 induced roadway closure is of significant concern. Closure of major arterials could require increased evacuation periods in some instances by several hours. Level of Damage The Hazus model classifies the vulnerability of facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a vulnerability category to selected occupancy types in the planning area except hazmat facilities and “other infrastructure” facilities, for which there are no established damage functions. The analysis (based on 2017 structure data) was performed for the 100- and 500-year probabilistic events. Those results are summarized in Table 6-10 and Table 6-11. Table 6-10 Expected Building Damage By Occupancy From100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Agriculture 65 16 8 2 0 Commercial 698 180 122 32 4 Government Functions 28 7 4 1 0 Industrial 237 65 48 13 1 Other Residential 3,121 1,518 1,368 311 21 Single Family 19,545 4,549 835 28 8 Schools 30 7 5 1 0 Table 6-11 Expected Building Damage By Occupancy From 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Agriculture 26 23 23 13 7 Commercial Functions 220 218 310 186 102 Government 9 8 12 8 4 Industrial 68 72 112 72 40 Other Residential 296 758 2,044 2,219 1,023 Single Family 10,779 9,488 4,245 361 82 Schools 11 10 12 7 4 Debris The 2018 Hazus analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake-caused debris in the planning area for the various earthquake events as summarized in Table 6-12. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-29 September 2023 Table 6-12 Estimated Earthquake Caused Debris Event Amount of Debris to be Removed 100-Year Earthquake (M6) 28 million tons or 1,200 truckloads* 500- Year Probabilistic Earthquake (M6) 230 million tons or 9,200 truckloads* Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. Data limitations exist as defined. Analysis for the 100- and 500-year probabilistic events utilized Hazus 4.0; the Cascadia Shake Map was not updated to a useable format in Hazus 4.0 at the time the analysis was conducted, and therefore is not included in this table. *Truck loads are determined for 25 tons/truck. 6.3.5 Impact on Economy Economic losses due to earthquake damage include damage to buildings, including the cost of structural and non-structural damage, damage to contents, and loss of inventory, loss of wages and loss of income. Loss of tax base both from revenue and lack of improved land values will increase the economic loss to the County and its planning partners. In addition, loss of goods and services may hamper recovery efforts, and even preclude residents from rebuilding within the area. No specific loss data is available with respect to loss of inventory, wages, or loss of income; however, economic loss with respect to building impact is the same as identified above. 6.3.6 Impact on Environment Earthquake-induced landslides can significantly impact habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. This can change water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. There is a possibility of streams fed by groundwater drying up because of changes in underlying geology. 6.3.7 Impact from Climate Change The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity. As ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are shifted on the earth’s crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre- glacier shape, it could cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity, according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity. Sea level rise is not anticipated to impact the earthquake hazard, as the normal tidal flows mimic a similar increase. Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms could experience liquefaction or an increased propensity for slides during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events. There are currently no models available to estimate these impacts. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-30 September 2023 6.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Mason County continues to utilize the International Building Code, which requires structures to be built at a level which supports soil types and earthquake hazards (ground shaking). As existing buildings are renovated, provisions are in place which require reconstruction at higher standards. 6.5 ISSUES While the area has a high probability of an earthquake event occurring within its boundaries, an earthquake does not necessarily have to occur in the planning area to have a significant impact as such an event would disrupt transportation to and from the region as a whole and impact commodity flow. As such, any seismic activity of 6.0 or greater on faults in or near the planning area would have significant impact. Potential warning systems could give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. This would provide limited time for preparation. Earthquakes of this magnitude or higher would lead to massive structural failure of property on NEHRP C, D, E, and F soils. Levees and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. These events could cause secondary hazards, including landslides and mudslides that would further damage structures. River valley hydraulic-fill sediment areas are also vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction would occur in water-saturated sands, silts, or gravelly soils. Earthquakes can cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water-saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding- like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and people. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events and the impacts of their eventual failures can be considered secondary risks for earthquakes. Earthquakes at sea can generate destructive tsunamis. Important issues associated with an earthquake include, but are not limited to the following: • More information is needed on the exposure and performance of construction within the planning area. Much information on the age, type of construction, or updated work on facilities is not readily available in a useable format for a risk assessment of this type. • It is presently unknown to what standards portions of the planning area’s building stock were constructed or renovated. • Based on the modeling of critical facility performance for FEMA’s 2017 RiskMap Report, a high number of facilities in the planning area are expected to have complete or extensive damage from scenario events. These facilities should be considered for structural retrofits. • Geotechnical standards should continue to take into account the probable impacts from earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities. • Dam failure warning, evacuation plans and procedures should be updated (and maintained) to reflect dam risk potential associated with earthquake activity in the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Earthquake Bridgeview Consulting 6-31 September 2023 region, with said information being distributed to the County and its planning partners to allow for appropriate planning to occur. • Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as a tsunami, which would have far-reaching impacts. 6.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from an Earthquake throughout the area is highly likely. A Cascadia-type event, such as that utilized as one of the scenarios modeled for this update, has a high probability of occurring within the region, while also generating the largest amount of damage. The losses related to earthquake scenarios are largely due to the proximity to the faults. In addition, the Unincorporated Areas of Mason County have large percentage of buildings located in the moderate-high liquefaction zone. Due to the age of many buildings throughout the planning area, there are large amounts of pre-code structures. With the absence of building codes at time of construction, the structures would undoubtedly be impacted and perform poorly when compared to structures built after code implementation. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.6, with overall vulnerability determined to be a high level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 7. FLOOD Floods are one of the most common natural hazards in the U.S. They can develop slowly over a period of days or develop quickly, with disastrous effects that can be local (impacting a neighborhood or community) or regional (affecting entire river basins, coastlines and multiple counties or states) (FEMA, 2010). Most communities in the U.S. have experienced some kind of flooding, after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, coastal storms, or winter snow thaws. Floods are one of the most frequent and costly natural hazards in terms of human hardship and economic loss, particularly to communities that lie within flood-prone areas or floodplains of a major water source. 7.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Flooding is a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land from the following: • Riverine flooding, including overflow from a river channel, flash floods, alluvial fan floods, dam-break floods, and ice jam floods; • Local drainage or high groundwater levels; • Fluctuating lake levels; • Coastal flooding; • Coastal erosion; • Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; • Mudflows (or mudslides); • Collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body of water that result in a flood, caused by erosion, waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated levels (Floodsmart.gov, 2012); • Sea level rise; • Climate Change. 7.1.1 Flooding Types Many floods fall into one of three categories: riverine, coastal, or shallow (urban flooding) (FEMA, 2005). Other types of floods include alluvial fan floods, dam failure floods, and floods associated with local drainage or high groundwater. For this hazard mitigation plan and as deemed appropriate by the County, riverine/stormwater flooding are the main flood types of concern for the planning area. DEFINITIONS Flood—The inundation of normally dry land resulting from the rising and overflowing of a body of water. Floodplain—The land area along the sides of a river that becomes inundated with water during a flood. 100-Year Floodplain—The area flooded by a flood that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. This is a statistical average only; a 100- year flood can occur more than once in a short period of time. The 1-percent annual chance flood is the standard used by most federal and state agencies. Floodway—The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-2 September 2023 Riverine Riverine floods are the most common flood type. They occur along a channel, and include overbank and flash flooding. Channels are defined ground features that carry water through and out of a watershed. They may be called rivers, creeks, streams, or ditches. When a channel receives too much water, the excess water flows over its banks and inundates low-lying areas. Flash Floods A flash flood is a rapid, extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within six hours of the causative event (e.g., intense rainfall, dam failure, ice j am). The time may vary in different areas. Ongoing flooding can intensify to flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of rising floodwaters (NWS, 2009). Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding is the flooding of normally dry, low-lying coastal land, primarily caused by severe weather events along the coast, estuaries, and adjoining rivers. These flood events are some of the more frequent, costly, and deadly hazards that can impact coastal communities. Factors causing coastal flooding include: • Storm surges, which are rises in water level above the regular astronomical tide caused by a severe storm’s wind, waves, and low atmospheric pressure. Storm surges are extremely dangerous, because they are capable of flooding large coastal areas. • Large waves, whether driven by local winds or swell from distant storms, raise average coastal water levels and individual waves roll up over land. • High tide levels are caused by normal variations in the astronomical tide cycle. • Other larger scale regional and ocean scale variations are caused by seasonal heating and cooling and ocean dynamics. Coastal floods are extremely dangerous, and the combination of tides, storm surge, and waves can cause severe damage. Coastal flooding is different from river flooding, which is generally caused by severe precipitation. Depending on the storm event, in the upper reaches of some tidal rivers, flooding from storm surge may be followed by river flooding from rain in the upland watershed. This increases the flood severity. Within the National Flood Insurance Flood Maps (discussed below), coastal flood zones identify special flood hazard areas (SFHA) which are subject to waves with heights of between 1.5 and 3 feet during a 1-percent annual chance storm (100-year event). Figure 7-1 illustrates the various SFHA zones. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-3 September 2023 Figure 7-1 Schematic of Coastal Flood Zones within the National Flood Insurance Program 7.1.2 Dam Failure Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways (Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2012): • Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34 percent of all dam failures, can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors. • Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30 percent of all dam failures. • Failure due to piping and seepage accounts for 20 percent of all failures. These are caused by internal erosion due to piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure. • Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10 percent of all failures. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-4 September 2023 The remaining 6 percent of U.S. dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes. Many dam failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage. The most likely disaster-related causes of dam failure in Mason County are earthquakes. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies. The potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act (Public Law 92-367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of every major dam in the country. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect the lives and property of the public. Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Program The Dam Safety Office (DSO) of the Washington Department of Ecology regulates over 1,000 dams in the state that impound at least 10 acre-feet of water. The DSO has developed dam safety guidelines to provide dam owners, operators, and design engineers with information on activities, procedures, and requirements involved in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of dams in Washington. The authority to regulate dams in Washington and to provide for public safety is contained in the following laws: • State Water Code (1917)—RCW 90.03 • Flood Control Act (1935)—RCW 86.16 • Department of Ecology (1970)—RCW 43.21A . Where water projects involve dams and reservoirs with a storage volume of 10 acre-feet or more, the laws provide for the Department of Ecology to conduct engineering review of the construction plans and specifications, to inspect the dams, and to require remedial action, as necessary, to ensure proper operation, maintenance, and safe performance. The DSO was established within Ecology’s Water Resources Program to carry out these responsibilities. The DSO provides reasonable assurance that impoundment facilities will not pose a threat to lives and property, but dam owners bear primary responsibility for the safety of their structures, through proper design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The DSO regulates dams with the sole purpose of reasonably securing public safety; environmental and natural resource issues are addressed by other state agencies. The DSO neither advocates nor opposes the construction and operation of dams. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non - federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency’s capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-5 September 2023 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. There are over 3,000 dams that are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC staff inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: • Potential dam safety problems; • Complaints about constructing and operating a project; • Safety concerns related to natural disasters; • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet, or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet. FERC staff monitors and evaluates seismic research and applies it in investigating and performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC staff also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC staff visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. The FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. Hazard Ratings The DSO classifies dams and reservoirs in a hazard rating system based solely on the potential consequences to downstream life and property that would result from a failure of the dam and sudden release of water. The following codes are used as an index of the potential consequences in the downstream valley if the dam were to fail and release the reservoir water: • 1A = Greater than 300 lives at risk (High hazard); • 1B = From 31 to 300 lives at risk (High hazard); • 1C = From 7 to 30 lives at risk (High hazard); • 2 = From 1 to 6 lives at risk (Significant hazard); • 3 = No lives at risk (Low hazard). The Corps of Engineers developed the hazard classification system for dam failures shown in Table 7-1. The Washington and Corps of Engineers hazard rating systems are both based only on the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-6 September 2023 potential consequences of a dam failure; neither system takes into account the probability of such failures. Table 7-1 Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification Hazard Categorya Direct Loss of Lifeb Lifeline Lossesc Property Lossesd Environmental Lossese Low None (rural location, no permanent structures for human habitation) No disruption of services (cosmetic or rapidly repairable damage) Private agricultural lands, equipment, and isolated buildings Minimal incremental damage Significant Rural location, only transient or day-use facilities Disruption of essential facilities and access Major public and private facilities Major mitigation required High Certain (one or more) extensive residential, commercial, or industrial development Disruption of essential facilities and access Extensive public and private facilities Extensive mitigation cost or impossible to mitigate a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project. b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time. c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption; for example, loss of critical medical facilities or access to them. d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply. e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995 As of 2023, Mason County has 23 dams within its boundaries identified by the Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Program. That is an increase in one dam since completion of the last pan, the North Ranch Storage Lagoon, a Class 2 dam, owned by Bio-Recycling Corp. The 23 dams within the county are illustrated in Figure 7-2.9 The entire list is available for review at the Washington State Department of Ecology’s website at Inventory of Dams Report for Selected Washington Counties and Selected Dam Hazard Categories. Based on review of the data, Mason County has eight (8) high hazard dams (one being the spillway head for Cushman Dam) within its boundary. One of those high-hazard dams is owned by the County, the Mason County Belfair Wastewater Treatment Plant Water Storage facility. The County also owns 9 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/94016.pdf Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-7 September 2023 one Hazard Class 2 dam – the North Bay Water Reclamation Pond, and one Hazard Class 3 dam – the Haven Lake Dam on the Tahuya River. The dams are utilized for many different purposes, and in most cases serve several functions. Of the 23 dams in the county: ➢ 17 are utilized for recreational purposes ➢ two for hydro-electric generation ➢ three for flood control purposes ➢ two for fish and wildlife protection, and ➢ three for water quality purposes. The surface area measured for the dams encompasses the reservoirs at their normal operating levels. Combined, there are in excess of 5,175 acres of surface area protected by the dams, with the Cushman Dam No. 1 being the largest, at 4,010 acres. In addition to the normal surface area, there is an additional 240 square miles of downstream drainage area, which is the combined area of the tributary watershed and the reservoir surface that can contribute runoff to the dam and reservoir. Inundation The owner of a dam is responsible for developing an inundation map, which is used in determining exposure to a potential dam failure or breech during development of dam response plans. As of this 2023 update, limited data is available for public use for many of the dams in Mason County. Mason County does have two FERC regulated hydro dams within its boundaries which are owned by the City of Tacoma, both of which are high-hazard dams (Cushman 1 and 2). In addition, it also has the Cushman Dam spillway, which is also considered a high-hazard dam. Inundation maps are not available for those dams. Two dams owned by Mason County - the Belfair Water Reclamation Facility Dam (Hazard Class 2E) and the North Bay/Case Inlet Water Reclamation Facility Dam (Hazard Class 2E) maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAP). Review of the EAPs indicate that there are approximately 16 parcels at risk (depth unknown) for the Belfair Facility. Review of the North Bay/Case Inlet EAP indicates there is no inundation impact should the dam fail. For the remaining dams, it is not possible to estimate the population living within the inundation zone beyond the information designated in the dam classification analysis . Based on the dam classification category identified above (e.g., high, significant or low hazard), were failure of all dams to occur, the potential lives at risk is in excess of 1,600 individuals. This number would be dependent on the level of failure or breach. This number also does not take into account the actual number of structures in place, nor the number of individuals living in or making use of those structures. Without the ability to perform an inundation study, it is not possible to estimate property losses from a dam failure which could ultimately affect the planning area. In some instances, however, dam inundation areas may coincide with flood hazard areas. Further review of the flood profile may provide a general concept of structures at risk, although, based on the size of the dams, damage would Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-8 September 2023 vary. As development occurs downstream of dams, it is necessary to review the dams’ emergency action plans and inundation maps to determine whether the dams require reclassification based on the established standards. The County and its planning partners will continue to work with dam owners in the area to gain information for high-hazard dams. Figure 7-2 Select Mason County Dams and Hazard Classification 7.1.3 Measuring Floods and Floodplains A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek or lake that becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains may be broad, as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in a canyon. Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent during and after major flood events. These areas form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources but also provides natural flood and erosion control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-9 September 2023 In the case of riverine or flash flooding, once a river reaches flood stage, the flood extent or severity categories used by the NWS include minor flooding, moderate flooding, and major flooding. Each category has a definition based on property damage and public threat (NWS, 2011): • Minor Flooding—Minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience. • Moderate Flooding—Some inundation of structures and roads near streams. Some evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations are necessary. • Major Flooding—Extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations. 7.1.4 Flood Insurance Rate Maps According to FEMA, flood hazard areas are defined as areas that are shown to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude on a map (see Figure 7-3). These areas are determined using statistical analyses of records of river flow, storm tides, and rainfall; information obtained through consultation with the community; floodplain topographic surveys; and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Three primary areas make up the flood hazard area: the floodplains, floodways, and floodway fringes. Figure 7-4 depicts the relationship among the various designations, collectively referred to as the special flood hazard area. Figure 7-3 Flood Hazard Area Referred to as a Floodplain Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-10 September 2023 Flood hazard areas are delineated on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which are official maps of a community on which the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration has indicated both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. These maps identify the special flood hazard areas; the location of a specific property in relation to the special flood hazard area; the base (100-year) flood elevation at a specific site; the magnitude of a flood hazard in a specific area; and undeveloped coastal barriers where flood insurance is not available. The maps also locate regulatory floodways and floodplain boundaries—the 100-year and 500-year floodplain boundaries (FEMA, 2003; FEMA, 2005; FEMA, 2008). Figure 7-4 Special Flood Hazard Area Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-11 September 2023 The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, which is a statistical tool used to define the probability that a certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded within a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The extent of flooding associated with a 1-percent annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100-year flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard area, this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage. A structure located within a 1 percent (100-year) floodplain has a 26 percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. The 100-year flood is a regulatory standard used by federal agencies and most states to administer floodplain management programs. The 1 percent (100-year) annual chance flood is used by the NFIP as the basis for insurance requirements nationwide. FIRMs also depict 500-year flood designations, which is a boundary of the flood that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. It is important to recognize, however, that flood events and flood risk are not limited to the NFIP delineated flood hazard areas. 7.1.5 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP is a federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damage. The U.S. C ongress established the NFIP with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (FEMA’s 2002 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Program Description). There are three components to the NFIP: flood insurance, floodplain management and flood hazard mapping. Nearly 20,000 communities across the U.S. and its territories participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS), which identifies the principal flood problems in the area, among other data. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-year flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. NFIP Participants must regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met: • New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-year flood. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-12 September 2023 • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. • New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species. Mason County maintains active participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and implements the NFIP regulations through Chapter 14.22 of the Mason County Code. Within Section 14.22.040 MCC there are definitions for “substantial damage” and “substantial improvement” as follows: Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, taking place during a ten-year period, in which the cumulative cost equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2. Any alteration of a “historic structure”; provided, that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” Elsewhere in that same Chapter, the requirements of the Chapter—including development permits, elevation certificates, floodproofing, elevation above base flood elevation, structure anchoring, and so on—are applied to all new construction and buildings undergoing substantial improvements, including those damaged as a result of flood events. The County regularly inspects and enforces all building codes and construction regulations to ensure compliance with the established County codes. NFIP Status and Severe Loss/Repetitive Loss Properties As indicated, Mason County is a member in good standing in the NFIP, and does incorporate regulatory authority within its land use planning, as does the City of Shelton (see City of Shelton Annex in Volume 2 for additional compliance information). Table 7-2 presents the NFIP policy status as of January 31, 2017. Table 7-3 illustrates the number of policies in force in 2022 (last full year of reporting). Comparison of the 2017 data to that of 2023 shows a reduced number of policies for both the County and the City of Shelton. For the County, coverage fell by 53 policies from 421 to 368, a loss of approximately 14 percent. Insurance in force rose slightly, which would demonstrate the increased Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-13 September 2023 cost in real estate values, particularly since the premiums in force fell. The City of Shelton lost approximately 50 percent of their policies in force, falling from 22 in 2017 to 11 in 2022. Table 7-2 NFIP Insurance Policies in Force in 2017 Community Name Policies In-Force Insurance In-Force Premiums In-Force Mason County 421 100,439,800 412,997 Shelton, City of 22 4,157,000 37,590 Skokomish Indian Tribe 5 1,387,800 11,076 Source: FEMA NFIP Policy Information (2017) Table 7-3 NFIP Insurance Policies in Force in 2022 Community Name Policies In-Force Insurance In-Force Premiums In-Force Mason County 368 $108,073,600 $273,853 Shelton, City of 11 $3,620,000 $12,876 Skokomish Indian Tribe 7 $4,102,600 $26,698 Source: FEMA NFIP Policy Information (November 2022) (Most current data available as of update.) Repetitive Flood Claims Residential or non-residential (commercial) properties that have received one or more NFIP insurance payments are identified as repetitive flood properties under the NFIP. Such properties are eligible for funding to help mitigate the impacts of flooding through various FEMA programs, subject to meeting certain criteria and based on the State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan maintaining a Repetitive Loss Strategy. Washington State’s 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan does contain such a strategy. Specifically, the Repetitive Loss Strategy must identify the specific actions the State has taken to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties, which must include severe repetitive loss properties, and specify how the State intends to reduce the number of such repetitive loss properties. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan must describe the State’s strategy to ensure that local jurisdictions with severe repetitive loss properties take actions to reduce the number of these properties, including the development of local hazard mitigation plans. Repetitive flood claims provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. Severe Repetitive Loss Program The severe repetitive loss program is authorized by Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 4102a), with the goal of reducing flood damages to residential properties that have experienced severe repetitive losses under flood insurance coverage and that will result in the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-14 September 2023 greatest savings to the NFIP in the shortest period of time. A severe repetitive loss property is a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: • a) That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or • b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any 10- year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. The Community Rating System The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions. Flood claim, repetitive loss, and severe repetitive loss property data varies from availability from the 2016 plan, which data is indicated in Table 7-4, which also identifies the CRS Community Status in the County. Table 7-5 identifies similar data for the 2023 update, with 2022 being the most current.10 At present, the planning partnership does not feel the level of effort to become a CRS community is warranted, nor within the capacity of the present staffing levels to facility such an endeavor. Of those structures identified in Table 7-5, all but one structure (at the Skokomish Tribe) were residential in nature, with the Tribe’s impacted structure being a business. Table 7-4 Community Status and Claims (2016) Community Name CRS Community Flood Claims Total Losses Paid Repetitive Loss Properties* Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Properties (SRL) Losses Paid City of Shelton N 8 $133K 3 2 $185K Unincorporated Areas of County N 192 $3.7M 27 1 $82K Squaxin Island Tribe N -- -- -- -- -- 10 * Table 7-4 is data reflected from 2016. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-15 September 2023 Table 7-4 Community Status and Claims (2016) Community Name CRS Community Flood Claims Total Losses Paid Repetitive Loss Properties* Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Properties (SRL) Losses Paid TOTAL -- 200 $3.7M 30 3 $267K Note: Repetitive Loss (12/2016) and Severe Repetitive Loss Data (2/2016) from State and FEMA sources (variations exist, but worst-case scenario presented) (Mason County FEMA Risk Report). Table 7-5 Community Status and Claims (2023) Community Name CRS Community Building Value* Repetitive Loss Properties* Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Properties* City of Shelton N $44.11M 22 3 Unincorporated Areas of County N $522K 3 2 Skokomish Tribe N $176k 1 0 Squaxin Island Tribe N -- -- -- TOTAL -- $44.8M 26 5 *Updated data varies by type available based on FEMA release. Data provided by Washington State Emergency Management Division and FEMA sources. Data is not publicly available. 7.2 HAZARD PROFILE 7.2.1 Extent and Location Flooding is the most common hazard occurring in Mason County, and is mostly due to riverine and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is seen on all main rivers and tributaries in the rural portions of the county. Urban flooding generally occurs within the boundaries of the City of Shelton, and the Belfair and Allyn urban growth areas. In addition, the County is also subject to coastal flooding. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-16 September 2023 FEMA Flood Maps FEMA performed a new flood study for Mason County that resulted in the creation of new flood maps in March 2017, and adopted by the County thereafter, with an effective date of June 2019 (FEMA FIS). The project updated flood modeling along the Mason County coastline, as well as multiple riverine and lake analyses throughout the county. In addition to FIRMs, FEMA also developed the flood risk assessment products used in their Risk Report, which supports much of the flood data utilized throughout this HMP update. Mason County’s 100- and 500-year flood areas are illustrated in Figure 7-5. It should be noted that only a very small area, or 0.3863 square miles of land fall within the 500-year flood hazard area based on FEMA’s FIRMs. Figure 7-5 Mason County 100-and 500-Year Flood Hazard Areas11 11 FEMA Flood Insurance Study (2019). Available at: FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search All Products (Also available from Mason County Emergency Management) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-17 September 2023 As a result of the FIS and associated FIRMS, FEMA developed depth grids for the 1-percent-annual- chance flood for the coastal and riverine areas, as well as 2-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood depth grids for Union River, Tahuya River, Coffee Creek, and Goldsborough Creek. FEMA also generated the depth grids from the flood model, which show the level of flooding in feet. The project team used the depth grids in the risk assessment to determine which properties are affected by flooding. The 1-percent-annual-chance depth grid for the City of Shelton area is shown Figure 7-6. Detailed information containing all data in the report is available for download from FEMA’s website, or available for viewing from the County’s Floodplain Manager. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-18 September 2023 Figure 7-6 100-Year Flood Hazard Depth Grid for the City of Shelton (FEMA 2017 Risk Report) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-19 September 2023 Principal Flooding Sources Most flooding in Mason County is due to river and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is seen on all main rivers and tributaries in the rural portions of the county. Urban flooding generally occurs within the boundaries of the Shelton, Belfair, and Allyn urban growth areas. Based on review of FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study (2019) and input from the planning team members, principal flooding sources in Mason County are influenced by several rivers, including the Satsop, Tahuya, Union, Goldsborough Creek, and Skokomish Rivers.12 Flooding in the first three rivers can effectively cut off pockets of residents due to mudslides and water over the roadways. The primary flood concern in Mason County is the Skokomish River. While previous flooding on the Skokomish River regularly caused closure of U. S. Highway 101, the main north-south route through Mason County, since completion of the last plan, that flooding was alleviated by improvements done to the Purdy Creek Bridge by WSDOT, and the removal of the Nally Farm dike. However, flooding does continue to close the Skokomish Valley Road and Bourgault Road several times annually. The Skokomish River Basin, located on the Great Bend of Hood Canal, is a natural fjord-like arm of the Puget Sound and water of national significance identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Skokomish River is the largest source of freshwater to Hood Canal and of critical importance to the overall health of Hood Canal, draining approximately 240 square miles of forested terrain into Hood Canal. According to a 2015 study conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the ecosystem in the Skokomish River Basin, which includes the Skokomish Indian Reservation, has been significantly degraded, with high sediment load, reduced flows, and encroachment on the floodplain by human-made structures causing continued degradation of natural ecosystem structures, functions, and processes throughout the basin. Channel capacity of the mainstem and South Fork Skokomish Rivers, as well as Vance Creek have been significantly reduced due to sediment accumulation. The mainstem has lost about 10,000 cfs of flow capacity since 1941 (USACE, 2015, p. 77). Aggradation is suspected to have been occurring since 1912 as a result of flooding evidence experienced at that time. During storms, gravel eroded from landslides deposits and is transported to lower channels as bedload. As floodwaters recede, the streams and rivers do not have enough stream energy to transport the bedload, causing accumulation in channels, increasing the level of floodwaters over the banks due to lower stream capacity. Over the course of time, this has, and will continue to increase flooding both in frequency and size in the area. But one example is the December 2007 storm event, which impacted several small creeks along US Highway 101 between Hoodsport and Lilliwaup that previously had not had a significant documented history of flooding. These creeks include Finch, Clark, Miller, and Sund Creeks (see Figure 7-7 below). Areas of the Tahuya Peninsula have been severely impacted by flooding from both the Tahuya and Union Rivers, in addition to the majority of the smaller creeks. Incidents such as the December 2007 12 FEMA Flood Insurance Study (2019). Available at: FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search All Products Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-20 September 2023 severe storm event impacted several small creeks along US Highway 101 between Hoodsport and Lilliwaup. The December 2007 storm event resulted in large quantities of alluvial material being deposited in the lower stream reaches. These streams now exhibit significant aggradation, which has elevated the streambeds and consequently will likely continue to cause flooding. Finch Creek experienced severe bank erosion. At least six property owners required bank armoring in order to protect homes and septic systems. Several homes in the Holiday Beach area (Miller Creek) also experienced flooding. Tidal changes from Hood Canal combined with increased runoff from the Olympics have also exacerbated the frequency of flooding in Mason County. The December 2022 King Tide event caused significant flooding issues within the County as a whole, with reports of damage and flooding from several areas of the county. One of the hardest hit areas fell within North Mason Fire Authority (see cover photo). The King Tides did extensive damage to numerous homes along the North Shore and South Shore of the Hood Canal. Rain caused water tributaries to back up and flood numerous residences along both shores. In addition, the high tides over-topped numerous beachfront bulkheads, flooding and eroding yards as well as homes. The Fire Authority estimated the number of homes impacted to be in excess of 50, with the estimate of homes significantly impacted by flood damage to be in excess of 20. Two families on the Southshore were trapped in their homes due to the rising flood waters and required Fire Authority rescue/evacuation. The Union River also swelled, making vehicle passage on Highway 300 impossible. Several cars attempted to travel through the flood waters but were unable to maneuver through the floodwaters. Two vehicle owners required Fire Authority assistance for evacuation from their cars. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-21 September 2023 Figure 7-7 Finch, Clark, Miller and Sund Creeks 7.2.2 Previous Occurrences Major floods in the planning area have resulted from intense rainstorms customarily between October and April. In addition to events discussed above, Table 7-6 highlights some of the historical flood events occurring in the area. It should be noted that due to the disaster typing which occurs at the FEMA level, there are other types of events which also include flooding, but due to the typing, those are not referenced within this chapter. Specific examples of this include Severe Weather events which include flooding as a hazard of impact. Viewers should also review the Severe Weather hazard profile for additional information. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-22 September 2023 Table 7-6 Flood Events Impacting Planning Area 1956-2016 Disaster Number Declaration Date Disaster Type Incident Type Title Incident Begin Date Incident End Date PA Dollars Obligated or Losses (State) 4539 4/23/2020 DR Flood Severe Storm, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides 1/20/2020 2/10/2020 $10.6M statewide Several days of heavy rain in January 20, 2020 resulted in widespread flooding of roadways, homes, and property. On April 23, 2020, a Federal disaster aid was made available to the State of Washington to supplement state, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the Mason County and other areas affected by the flooding. 4253 2/2/2016 DR Flood Severe Winter Storm, Straight- Line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Tornado 12/1/2015 12/14/2015 $3,166,346 Several days of heavy rain in December 2015 resulted in widespread flooding of roadways, homes, and property. On February 2, 2016, Federal disaster aid was made available to the State of Washington to supplement state, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the Mason County and other areas affected by the flooding. 1817 1/30/2009 DR Flood Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides, & Flooding 1/6/2009 1/16/2009 January 2009- Washington State was hit with severe winter storms that brought heavy rains and warmer temperatures, resulting in snow melting causing flooding, land- and mudslides. ~12 county roads were impacted by flooding; three homes were destroyed; two had major damage; three had minor damage; and 12 more were affected. Costs for damages due to flooding were estimated at $750,000. Mason County received $65,000 of HMGP funds to update their HMP. 1172 4/2/1997 DR Flood Heavy Rains, Snow Melt, Flooding, Land Slides 3/18/1997 3/28/1997 $50,889,413 A week of torrential rain in late March 1997 created flooding and landslides in multiple places in Washington State. In Mason County, multiple roads were closed and five homes were posted for evacuation. 883 11/26/1990 DR Flood Severe Storms & Flooding 11/9/1990 12/20/1990 $2.9 million Two individuals died as a result of this incident statewide. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, between 8 and 15 inches of rain fell. County road damage, including replacement costs for a bridge over Mission Creek, totaled $260,000. Several homes were extensively damaged in the Skokomish Valley and two homes were uninhabitable. Twenty-five people were evacuated from the Skokomish Valley. Highways and roads were closed. Residents lost power. On November 26, 1990, Federal disaster aid was made available. Mason County received $754,238 of HMGP funds for the East Bourgault Road area property acquisition project. 612 12/31/1979 DR Flood Storms, High Tides, Mudslides & Flooding 12/31/1979 12/31/1979 Heavy rains and snowmelt caused floods, mudslides, and road washouts. Twenty-eight Skokomish Valley residents were evacuated. Damage to county roads was estimated at $375,000 to $515,000 and damage to other property was estimated at $160,000. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-23 September 2023 Table 7-6 Flood Events Impacting Planning Area 1956-2016 492 12/13/1975 DR Flood Severe Storms & Flooding 12/13/1975 12/13/1975 Damage to county roads totaled ~ $185,000. Flooding in Skokomish Valley damaged a number of levees. Numerous residences had water damage. Several persons were evacuated from their homes by boat. The total estimate of damage to private and farm land was $300,000. 414 1/25/1974 DR Flood Severe Storms, Snowmelt & Flooding 1/25/1974 1/25/1974 Unknown Impacts included roadway closures resulting from flooding and landslides in the area. 185 12/29/1964 DR Flood Heavy Rains & Flooding 12/29/1964 12/29/1964 In December 1964, snow and heavy rains caused slides and run-off knocking two houses 12 feet off of their foundations, covering half of Hwy 21 above Alderbrook. One house was unoccupied. The other residents were not injured. Slides and running water closed the Purdy Cut-Off Road. Snow accumulation amounted to 20 inches in Union and Hoodsport areas, 19 inches at Lilliwaup, 16 inches at Dayton, 20 inches in the Matlock area, and 36 inches at the upper end of Lake Cushman. Shelton, Kamilche, and Mary M. Knight schools were closed for 1 day. Falling branches and the weight of the snow caused numerous power outages. Numerous reports were received of roofs of barns, sheds, carports, and garages collapsing under the weight of the snow. Snow (4 ½ feet deep) closed logging operations at Camps Grisdale and Govey. Dairymen in the Skokomish Valley couldn’t operate milking machines or water cattle due to power outages. At the height of the storm only 150 of the 1600 PUD customers had electricity. Cost of the storm damage was estimated between $25,000 and $30,0 00. 7.2.3 Severity The severity of a flood depends not only on the amount of water that accumulates in a period of time, but also on the land’s ability to manage this water. One element is the size of rivers and streams in an area; but an equally important factor is the land’s absorbency. When it rains, soil acts as a sponge. When the land is saturated or frozen, infiltration into the ground slows and any more water that accumulates must flow as runoff (Harris, 2001). The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain, redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Flood severity is often evaluated by examining peak discharges. Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9 illustrates the December 3, 2007 Severe Storm event (DR-1734), when U.S. Highway 101 was inundated due to approximately four feet of floodwaters crossing the roadway. These types of incidents indicate that more areas are becoming prone to flooding. As of 2017, there are approximately 58.67 square miles of land within the 100-year and 0.3863 sq. miles of land within the 500-year flood hazard areas based on the identified flood hazard area within the 2017 FIRMs. In 2010, during the last HMP update process, there were approximately 23 square miles of land within the flood hazard area. One of the County’s identified action items in the 2010 plan was to work with the USGS and other agencies to install river gauges or other technology on rivers other than the Skokomish. The County is aware of a number of repetitive flood loss properties within the Tahuya River watershed, but without accurate frequency determinations it is extremely difficult to develop cost-effective mitigation solutions. The County itself has installed additional gauges on the Skokomish since Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-24 September 2023 completion of the 2018 plan. This 2010 project was brought forward to the 2018 plan update, and will remain as a strategy in this 2023 update. 7.2.4 Frequency Mason County experiences some level of flooding on an annual basis. What customarily constituted the “normal” flood season of October through April in Western Washington does not necessarily apply to the Skokomish River, which has received Flood Warnings issued by the National Weather Service during the month of July. Large floods that have caused property damage have occurred 10 times during the time period 1956 through 2022, with the first recorded flood occurring in 1964. Frequency for this calculation was based on the period covering 1956 to 2022, and the number of events averaged based on years and number of floods. It should be noted that this does not reflect the recurrence interval, as that calculation is specific on varying factors, such as the incident type, discharge rate, etc., and that type of analysis was not included in this process. Based on this method of assessment, the return interval is 6.5 years, or a 15 percent chance of some level of a flood event occurring every year. Figure 7-8 December 3, 2007 Incident Highway 101 North of Shelton Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-25 September 2023 Figure 7-9 Belfair-Tahuya Bridge on the Tahuya River December 2007 (DR 1734) 7.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT To understand risk, a community must evaluate what assets are exposed or vulnerable in the identified hazard area. For this planning purpose, the flood hazard areas identified include the 1- percent (100-year) floodplain and the coastal floodplain. The following text evaluates and estimates the potential impact of flooding in Mason County. 7.3.1 Overview All types of flooding can cause widespread damage throughout rural and urban areas, including but not limited to: water-related damage to the interior and exterior of buildings; destruction of electrical and other expensive and difficult-to-replace equipment; injury and loss of life; proliferation of disease vectors; disruption of utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, communications networks and facilities; loss of agricultural crops and livestock; placement of stress on emergency response and healthcare facilities and personnel; loss of productivity; and displacement of persons from homes and places of employment. Methodology The 1 percent (100-year) annual chance Riverine flood and the 1 percent (100-year) Coastal events were examined to evaluate Mason County’s risk and vulnerability to the flood hazard. These events are generally those considered by planners and evaluated under federal programs such as the NFIP. As indicated, the County’s FIRMs were developed and later adopted during the 2017 HMP planning cycle. During this 2023 update, WA DOE, as the responsible state agency charged with the RiskMap Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-26 September 2023 flood analysis, was queried if other updated data for flood determination was available. The Planning Team was advised that the 2017 data remains the most current and determined to be the best available science for use in this update. During the HMP update, the planning team developed a new list of critical facilities, which was utilized to supplement the 2017 critical facilities list throughout the various processes to identify exposure to the flood-prone areas. Warning Time Due to the sequential pattern of meteorological conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to occur without some warning. Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash flooding can be less predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash flooding danger. 7.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety The impact of flooding on life, health and safety is dependent upon several factors including the severity of the event and whether or not adequate warning time is provided to residents. Exposure represents the population living in or near floodplain areas that could be impacted should a flood event occur. Additionally, exposure should not be limited to only those who reside in a defined hazard zone, but everyone who may be affected by the effects of a hazard event (e.g., people are at risk while traveling in flooded areas, or their access to emergency services is compromised during an event). The degree of that impact will vary and is not measurable. Of significant concern within the planning area is the number of tourists who can be impacted during periods of flooding. Tourism is a fairly large economy within the planning area (the Olympic National Forest, water sports, large recreational camping locations, Little Creek Casino), with many tourists traveling through the area to other areas of the state. Tourism also fluctuates based on season. To estimate the population exposed to the 1 percent and 0.2 percent annual chance (100- and 500- year) flood events, the DFIRM floodplain boundaries were intersected with residential parcels (based off of Mason County 2017 Assessor data) whose centers intersect the floodplain. Total population was estimated by multiplying the number of residential structures by the average Mason County household size of 2 persons per household. Table 7-7 identifies the estimated population located within these flood zones by municipality or census designated place. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-27 September 2023 Table 7-7 Population Exposed within Flood Hazard Areas Jurisdiction Population in the 1% annual chance event (100- Year) Flood Boundary Population in the 0.2% annual chance (500-Year) Flood Boundary Unincorporated Mason County 1,818 742 Shelton, City of 486 512 Allyn 0 0 Belfair 22 0 Total 2,326 1,254 *Based on 2017 Assessor’s data for residential structures within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains and an estimate of 2 persons per residential structure Of the population exposed, the most vulnerable include the economically disadvantaged and the population over the age of 65. Economically disadvantaged populations are more vulnerable because they are likely to evaluate their risk and make decisions to evacuate based on the net economic impact on their family. The population over the age of 65 is also more vulnerable because they are more likely to seek or need medical attention which may not be available due to isolation during a flood event and they may have more difficulty evacuating. The number of injuries and casualties resulting from flooding is generally limited based on advance weather forecasting, blockades, and warnings. Therefore, injuries and deaths generally are not anticipated if proper warning and precautions are in place. Ongoing mitigation efforts should help to avoid the most likely cause of injury, which results from persons trying to cross flooded roadways or channels during a flood. 7.3.3 Impact on Property Table 7-8 identifies the number of acres within the 100- and 500-year flood hazard areas. Table 7-9 summarizes the total number of structures and losses by coastal and riverine hazards, and number of structures in the SFHAs which would be inundated by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. Figure 7-10 illustrates the general building stock at risk as determined during FEMA’s 2017 flood study. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-28 September 2023 Table 7-8 Acres in 100 and 500 Year Flood Hazard Areas for Jurisdiction's Boundary Flood Zone Mason County, WA Unincorporated Mason Co. City of Shelton Town of Allyn Town of Belfair 100 Year Flood Zone - (Includes Zones A, AE, AH, AO, VE) 37,458 37,161.0 186.9 85.5 24.4 500-Year Flood Zone 247 223.6 22.0 0.0 1.2 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-29 September 2023 Table 7-9 Structures At Risk Co m m u n i t y To t a l E s t i m a t e d B u i l d i n g ( B l d g ) Va l u e To t a l N u m b e r O f Bl d g s . Bld g . Do l l a r L o s s F o r A 1 % A n n u a l Ch a n c e C o a s t a l F l o o d E v e n t Lo s s R a t i o ( D o l l a r L o s s e s / T o t a l Bld g . Va l u e ) Bld g . Do l l a r L o s s F o r A 1 % A n n u a l Ch a n c e R i v e r i n e F l o o d E v e n t Lo s s R a t i o ( D o l l a r L o s s e s / T o t a l Bl d g . Va l u e ) Nu m b e r O f Bl d g s . Wi t h i n T h e VE Zo n e Nu m b e r O f Bl d g s . wit h i n the AE o r A Z o n e s Nu m b e r of Bl d g s . wit h i n the SF H A Pe r -Ce n t O f Bl d g s . in th e SF H A City of Shelton $422.6M 3,279 - - $1.4M <1% 0 93 93 2.8% Skokomish Indian Reservation $36.4M 381 $69.7k <1% <$3.1k <1% 0 31 31 8.1% Unincorporated Mason County $3.5B $27,118 $13.2M <1% $22.0M <1% 135 1986 2121 7.8% Total $4.0B 30,778 $13.3M <1% $23.5M <1% 135 2110 2245 7.3% Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-30 September 2023 Figure 7-10 FEMA Coastal and Riverine Flood Damage in Mason County (2017 Risk Map) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-31 September 2023 7.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure In addition to considering general building stock at risk, the risk of flood to critical facilities and utilities was evaluated. Exposure analysis was utilized based on FEMA’s 2017 flood maps and the 2023 critical facilities identified for this update. Table 7-10 and Table 7-11 identify the critical facilities and infrastructure located in the FEMA 100- year flood hazard area. No critical facilities are identified within the 500-year flood zone; however, there are a total of 15 structures in very close proximity (within 100-500 feet) of the 500-year flood zone. Figure 7-11 illustrates all critical facilities and proximity to the 100- and 500-year flood zones. Table 7-10 Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain Jurisdiction Medical and Health Services Government Function Protective Hazardous Materials Shelter Total Unincorporated 0 0 2 0 0 2 Shelton, City 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total 0 0 3 0 1 4 Table 7-11 Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain Jurisdiction Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other Total Unincorporated 22 1 0 0 0 23 Shelton, City 1 0 1 0 0 2 Total 23 1 1 0 0 25 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-32 September 2023 Figure 7-11 Critical Facily Proximity to 100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Areas In cases where short-term functionality is impacted by a hazard, other facilities of neighboring municipalities may need to increase support response functions during a disaster event. Mitigation planning should consider means to reduce impact on critical facilities and ensure sufficient emergency and school services remain when a significant event occurs. 7.3.5 Impact on Economy Impact on the economy related to a flood event in Mason County would include loss of property, associated tax revenue (real estate), as well as potential loss of businesses and the associated revenues generated from those businesses, both in taxes and on individual income loss of spending . Depending on the duration between onset of the event and recovery, businesses within the area may not be able to sustain the economic loss of their business being disrupted for an extended period of time. Historical data has demonstrated that those businesses impacted by a disaster are less likely to reopen after an event. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-33 September 2023 7.3.6 Impact on Environment Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless, with human development factored in, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements. Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; land is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; and land is flatter and easier to develop. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This increases flood potential in two ways: it reduces the stream’s capacity to contain flows, and it increases flow rates or velocities downstream during all stages of a flood event. Migrating fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded fields, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such as bridge abutments and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non-natural courses. In 2014, the US Army Corp of Engineers developed an Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement specifically for the Skokomish River Basin. Review of the report identifies the fact that high sediment load, reduced flows, and encroachment on the floodplain by human-made structures have, and continue to degrade the natural ecosystem structures, functions, and processes throughout the basin. That degradation has caused a significant decline in populations of four anadromous fish species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g., Chinook salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, and bull trout) that use the river as their primary habitat. The impaired ecosystem has also adversely affected critical riverine, wetland, and estuarine habitats used by other wildlife species such as bears, bald eagles, and river otters to name a few. Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in quantity and diversity of plant and animal species. A floodplain can contain 100 or even 1000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the rapid decomposition of organic matter that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly; however, the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains particularly valuable for agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, riparian trees (trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick-growing compared to non-riparian trees. 7.3.7 Impact from Climate Change Global climate change is expected to result in warmer and wetter winters and are projected to increase flooding frequency in most Western Washington river basins. Future floods are expected to exceed the capacity and protective abilities of many existing flood protection facilities, threatening lives, property, major transportation corridors, communities, and regional economic centers. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-34 September 2023 Changes in Hydrology Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Going forward, model calibration or statistical relation development must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted. Climate change in ma ny areas is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following: • Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions. • Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness, and emergency response. The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain area to contribute to peak storm runoff. High frequency flood events (e.g. 10-year floods) in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. Along with reductions in the amount of the snowpack and accelerated snowmelt, scientists project greater storm intensity, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, increased sedimentatio n will occur, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts. Mason County has already experienced such influences such as with the 2007 flooding, and with the 2023 King Tide events. Sediment movement is influencing the banks of the waterways, increasing flooding events in areas where typical flooding has not occurred. As hydrology changes, what is currently considered a 100-year flood may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local wastewater treatment facilities and storm drains. For Mason County, this also includes the availability of additional stream flow gauges along the various waterways. Dams Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-35 September 2023 Throughout the west, communities downstream of dams are already experiencing increases in stream flows from earlier releases from dams. Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways.” Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design failures,” result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures. Sea Level Rise Sea level and temperature are interrelated (U.S. EPA, 2016). Warmer temperatures result in the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. This melting means that less water is stored on land and, thus, there is a greater volume of water in the oceans. Water also expands as it warms, and the heat content of the world’s oceans has been increasing over the last several decades. The impacts of sea level rise could include increased coastal community flooding, coastal erosion and landslides, seawater well intrusion, acidification of waters, and lost wetlands and estuaries. 7.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Mason County and its planning partners are subject to the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), which regulates identified critical areas. Mason County critical areas regulations include frequently flooded areas, defined as the FEMA 100-year mapped floodplain. The GMA establishes review and evaluation programs that monitor commercial, residential, and industrial development and the densities at which this development has occurred under each jurisdiction’s GMA comprehensive plan and development regulations. An evaluation is required at least every five years of the sufficiency of remaining land within urban growth areas to accommodate projected residential, commercial, and industrial growth at development densities observed since the adoption of GMA plans. This buildable lands report compares planned versus actual urban densities in order to determine whether original plan assumptions were accurate. In addition, the County also is required to develop shoreline management practices, which also support mitigation efforts with respect to reduced flooding and building more resilient communities. Section 3 of this plan discusses the County’s land use designations, including identification of critical areas. Since completion of the 2018 HMP, the County has updated its Shoreline plan, and is currently in the process of updating its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The floodplain portions of the planning area are regulated under the GMA and the NFIP. Development will occur in the floodplain; however, it will be regulated such that the degree of risk will be reduced through building standards and performance measures. As NFIP map updates have occurred, those updates will continue to be utilized to further expand, modify, and enhance planning efforts occurring within the County. 7.5 ISSUES A large portion of the planning area has the potential to flood, generally in response to a succession of winter rainstorms. Storm patterns of warm, moist air are normal events, usually occurring between October and April can cause severe flooding in the planning area, although flooding can occur at any time. The issue of high tides, particularly in light of anticipated sea level rise, will Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-36 September 2023 continue to be of issue. Such issues would be of even greater concern if the high tide occurs in conjunction with a wind-driven event. A worst-case scenario for a flood event within the County would be a series of storms that result in high accumulations of runoff surface water within a relatively short time period. This could overwhelm response capabilities within Mason County. Major roads could be blocked as has previously occurred, preventing critical access for residents and critical functions in portions of the planning region. High in-channel flows could cause watercourses to scour, possibly washing out roads or impacting bridges, creating more isolation problems, and further exacerbating erosion along the coastline. In the case of multi-basin flooding, repairs could not be made quickly enough to restore critical facilities and infrastructure. While human activities influence the impa ct of flooding events, human activities can also interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities’ adverse impacts on floodplain functions. The following flood-related issues are relevant to the planning area: • While flooding on the Skokomish River is well documented, there are limited river gauges available. • Additional rivers in the County, such as the Tahuya River in North Mason, also regularly experience flooding. There are currently no USGS river gauges outside the Skokomish watershed, which significantly impacts the County’s ability to monitor and develop effective mitigations actions. The county has installed several gauges additional gauges on the Skokomish River in an attempt to capture data, but additional gauges are needed on the additional rivers. • The risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as severe storm events, high tides, earthquake, and landslide. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation goals with multiple objectives to reduce the risk of multiple hazards. • Climate change will impact flood conditions throughout the County. The County lacks the resources to complete any type of climate change impact study. • More information is needed on flood risk with respect to structure type, year built, elevation, etc., to support the concept of risk-based analysis of capital projects. • There needs to be a sustained effort to gather historical damage data, such as high-water marks on structures and damage reports, to measure the cost-effectiveness of future mitigation projects. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources. • There needs to be a coordinated hazard mitigation effort between the County, the City of Shelton, the Skokomish and Squaxin Island Tribes, and the Washington Department of Transportation as it relates to flooding and flood induced issues and the potential for areas to experience isolation as a result of limited ingress and egress to certain areas of the County during storm/flooding events. • Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the resources available during and after floods. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Flood Bridgeview Consulting 7-37 September 2023 • The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting property from the economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue. Since completion of the last plan, the County and the City of Shelton have experienced a reduction in the number of policies in force. • Existing floodplain-compatible uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained. 7.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from Flood throughout the area is highly likely. The area experiences some level of flood almost annually. While structural damage may vary due to flood depths and existing floodplain management regulations, there is a fairly high rate of property ownership that does not have flood insurance. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.25, with overall vulnerability determined to be a high level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 8. LANDSLIDE A landslide is defined as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Such failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope is exceeded by the pressure acting upon them, such as weight or saturation. Earthquakes provide many times more energy than needed to initiate soil liquefaction, enhancing not only the probability of a landslide, but also its magnitude. Washington State climate, topography, and geology create a perfect setting for landslides, which occur in the state every year. In Western Washington, most landslides are triggered during fall and winter after storms dump large amounts of rain or snow (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2015). Landslides can be shallow or deep. Shallow landslides typically occur in winter in Western Washington and summer in Eastern Washington, but are possible at any time. They often form as slumps along roadways or fast-moving debris flows down valleys or concave topography. They are commonly called “mudslides” by the news media. Deep-seated landslides are often slow moving, but can cover large areas and devastate infrastructure and housing developments. A mudslide or debris flow is a fast-moving fluid mass of rock fragments, soil, water, and organic material with more than half of the particles being larger than sand size. Generally, these types of movement occur on steep slopes or in gullies and can travel long distances. Typically, debris flows result from unusually high rainfall, or rain-on-snow events. A rock fall is the fall of newly detached segments of bedrock of any size from a cliff or steep slope. The rock descends by free fall, bouncing, or rolling. Movements are very rapid to extremely rapid, and may not be preceded by minor movements. 8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A landslide, or a mass of rock, earth or debris moving down a slope, may be minor or very large, and can move at slow to very high speeds. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, or human modification of the land. Mudslides (or mudflows or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth, organic matter, and other soil materials saturated with water. They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material increases to the point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically weakened. The soil’s reduced resistance can then easily be overcome by gravity, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or “slurry.” A debris flow or mudflow can move rapidly down slopes or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. The slurry can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars, and anything else in its path. Although these slides behave as fluids, they pack many times the hydraulic DEFINITIONS Landslide—The movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Such failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope is exceeded by the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. Mass Movement—A collective term for landslides, debris flows, falls and sinkholes. Mudslide (or Mudflow or Debris Flow)—A river of rock, earth, organic matter and other materials saturated with water. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-2 September 2023 force of water, due to the mass of material included in them. Locally, they can be some of the most destructive events in nature. All mass movements are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as the encroaching influence of urbanization. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it. The occurrence of a landslide is dependent on a combination of site-specific conditions and influencing factors. Most commonly, the factors that contribute to landslides fall into four broad categories: • Climatic or hydrologic (rainfall or precipitation); • Geomorphic (slope form and conditions, e.g., slope, shape, height, steepness, vegetation, and underlying geology); • Geologic/geotechnical/hydrogeological (groundwater); • Human activity. Change in slope of the terrain, increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations, change in water content, groundwater movement, frost action, weathering of rocks, and removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes are all contributing factors. In general, landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill movement of material, such as the following: • Areas identified as having slopes greater than 33 percent; • A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years; • Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank, or cut into a bank to cause the surrounding land to be unstable; • The presence of an alluvial fan, indicating vulnerability to the flow of debris or sediments; • The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such as sand and gravel. Flows and slides are commonly categorized by the form of initial ground failure. Common types of slides are shown on Figure 8-1 through Figure 8-4 (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014). The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring particularly in response to intense, short- duration storms, where antecedent conditions are prevalent (Baum, et. al, 2000). The largest and most destructive are deep-seated slides, although they are less common. Deep-seated landslides are much larger than shallow landslides and can occur at any time of the year. Soil degradation can happen over years, decades, and centuries with little to no warning to people above ground. The most notable and deadliest deep-seated landslide event in the United States was SR 530 (also known as the Oso Landslide) that took the lives of 43 people in Oso, Washington, in 2014. Slides and earth flows can pose serious hazard to property in hillside terrain. They tend to move slowly and thus rarely threaten life directly. When they move—in response to such changes as increased water content, earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope support— Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-3 September 2023 they deform and tilt the ground surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or overriding of downslope property and structures. Erosion is the process by which material is removed from a region of the earth’s surface. It can occur by weathering and transport of solids (sediment, soil, rock, and other particles) in the natural environment. This also leads to the deposition of these materials elsewhere, which can increase the impacts from flood events. Erosion usually occurs as a result of transport of solids by wind, water or ice, and by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity, similar to landslides. It can also be caused by animals burrowing, reducing soil stability. Although erosion is a natural process, as with landslides, human land use policies have an effect on erosion, especially industrial agriculture, deforestation, and urban sprawl. Land that is used for industrial agriculture generally experiences a significantly greater rate of erosion than land with natural vegetation or land used for sustainable agricultural. This is particularly true if tillage is used in farm practices, which reduces vegetation cover on the surface of the soil and disturbs both soil structure and plant roots that would otherwise hold the soil in place. Improved land use practices can limit erosion, using techniques such as terracing or terrace-building, no or limited tilling, limited logging or replanting after logging, and the planting of vegetation to limit erosion through ground cover. Figure 8-1 Deep Seated Slide Figure 8-2 Shallow Colluvial Slide Figure 8-3 Bench Slide Figure 8-4 Large Slide Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-4 September 2023 While a certain amount of erosion is natural and healthy for an ecosystem—such as gravel continuously moving downstream in watercourses—excessive erosion causes serious problems, such as receiving water sedimentation, ecosystem damage and loss of soil and slope stability. Erosion can cause a loss of forests and trees, which causes serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power development by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs, and rivers. Concentrated surface water runoff in drainages and swales can lead to channel-confined slope failures, involving the rapid transport of fluidized debris, known as debris flows. Mason County Classified Landslide Hazard Areas: Within Mason County’s Resource Ordinance (revised October 2017)13, the following are classified as Landslide Hazard Areas: a) Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps, and rock falls; b) Areas with artificial over-steepened or un-engineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills. c) Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils. d) Areas over-steepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. e) Slopes greater than 15% (8.5 degrees) and having the following: 1. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock (e.g. sand overlying clay); and 2. Springs or groundwater seepage. f) Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. 8.2 HAZARD PROFILE 8.2.1 Extent and Location The best predictor of where slides and earth flows might occur is the location of past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small portion of them may become active in any given year. The recognition of ancient dormant mass movement sites is important in the identification of areas susceptible to flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet weather. Also, because they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, these dormant sites are vulnerable to construction-triggered sliding. 13 Mason County Resource Ordinance. Accessed 8 Feb 2023. Available online at: Microsoft Word - Resource Ordinance 10-02-2017.docx (masoncountywa.gov) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-5 September 2023 Mason County is subject to landslides and soil erosion due to wind, water, and flooding at all times of the year; the landslides and soil erosion are largely concentrated on coastal bluffs on a fairly large percent of the total marine shoreline within the County (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1980). Much of Mason County encompasses coastal communities or coastal areas (see Figure 8-5).14 Mason County’s shorelines include approximately 700 linear miles, which are composed of 217 miles of marine shoreline, 330 miles of river shoreline, and 150 miles of lakeshore (Mason County Cumulative Impact Analysis, 2017). Of those 96 miles, or 44 percent, were categorized as unstable (Mason County 2010 HMP; Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas, 1980). This equates to approximately 60 percent of the total marine shoreline (Washington Department of Ecology, 1980). Areas of the County are subject to beach erosion of feeder bluffs, which is a coastal bluff that delivers sediment to the beach over an extended period time, and contributes sediment. Feeder Bluffs consist of actively eroding bluffs which provide sediments to nearby beaches. Bluff retreat by erosion can be more than 2 feet per year or can be less than 1 inch per year, but can be punctuated by landslides that can set a bluff back by more than 20 feet in a few hours (Thorsen and Shipman, 1998). 14 Ibid. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-6 September 2023 Figure 8-5 Mason County Shoreline Environmental Designations (2021) The Hood Canal area has experienced significant slides in the past, with major efforts occurring to stabilize the landslides with drainage and structural improvements. Approximately 10% of the landscape in Mason County (excluding Olympic National Forest and Park areas) has a slope of 15-30%; approximately 3% has steeper slopes of 30-45% (Mason County COMP Plan, 2017). Within Mason County, slides may occur in association with fine grained lakebed or fluvial sediments Figure 8-6 illustrates a slide occurring within the County (photo courtesy of the Dept. of Ecology (5/8/1999, #99-25-2). Figure 8-7 illustrates the landslide hazard Critical Areas identified within the County’s Comprehensive Plan (for reference purposes only) (Mason County Comprehensive Plan, 2017). Figure 8-6 House destroyed by landslide in Lilliwaup Winter 1998-1999 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-7 September 2023 Figure 8-7 Comprehensive Plan Identified Critical Areas - Landslide Hazard Area 8.2.2 Previous Occurrences Landslides within the planning area are fairly common, with landslides associated with disaster declarations for severe storms and flooding events in Mason County, as listed in Chapter 3, Table 3-1. The County has never received a disaster declaration specifically typed Landslide by FEMA. There is one record of a fatality due to landslide in the County. This occurred when a landslide struck a residence during the 2007 storm event. Since 1956, within Mason County, a total of 13 severe weather events have occurred, 11 of which have included impact from landslides. One landslide event has occurred since completion of the last plan in 2020, for which approximately $11 million dollars in PA funding has been distributed statewide. 2022 again saw some slides occurring, impacting roadways throughout the county. The recorded landslide history to state highways in Mason County dates as far back as 1925. Impact to the highway system from landslide is one of the most significant issues with respect to the landslide hazard for the County, as it restricts ingress and egress in areas, causing isolation and, in some instances, suspending emergency response. The following synopsis identifies some historic landslide events impacting the County, as well as mitigation activities taken to correct issues. Thereafter are a series of photographs which illustrate some of the impact. • Episodically active for decades followed by severe deformation and retrogression in 1997–8 and 1998–99, resulted in 5 month highway closure along SR 3 on the Allyn Curves. Realignment in 1993 and stabilization in 1999 costs totaled around $5 million. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-8 September 2023 • Winter storms of February 1999 caused the Jorstad Creek landslide at MP 322, impacting a 500 ft. long and 1,000 ft. wide section of US 101 (see Figure 8-8).15 • Winter storm February 1999 also impacted a 500 ft. long and 1,800 ft. wide section of US 101 at Lilliwaup, resulting in extensive drainage and retaining wall construction to stabilize the slope. • October 2003 Heavy rainfall caused severe flooding and landslides in 15 counties. Landslides or ground failure caused temporary closures on nine state highways, with a debris flow blocking US 101 in Jefferson and Mason Counties. • December 3, 2007 (DR 1734), which caused both Highways 101 and 106 to close several times in the vicinity of Lilliwaup, Eldon and Union. The Tahuya Peninsula was severely impacted by landslides. Landslides and erosion during this storm caused millions of d ollars in damage. o As a result of the 2007 storm event, in Mason and Jefferson Counties, there were 214 landslides recorded. Of these slides, there were 80 shallow undifferentiated landslides, 23 debris flows, 108 debris slides, 1 deep-seated landslide, and two hyper- concentrated flows. o At least 12 houses were damaged during the storm. o U.S. Highway 101 was damaged or blocked by 16 slides. o State Route 106 was damaged or blocked by two (2) slides, and five (5) slides blocked or damaged various other roads. o In the aftermath of the December 2007 storm, 581 people applied for Individual and Household Assistance with FEMA. The amount approved for Mason County was $1,128,094. • Winter 2009 - The incident was not a declared disaster event, but caused landslides throughout the planning area. Figure 8-9 illustrates a head scarp of a landslide which had approximately 4 feet of vertical movement and 2 feet of horizontal movement in sandy glacial till at Lake Kokanee. The head scarp was approximately 60 feet above the lake level. The crevasse formed by the scarp was approximately 3 feet deep, and based on the lack of forest debris and ravel in place at the time, it was estimated that the formation had been very recent, occurring within a few weeks of the photo being taken in April 2009. • As a result of continued unstable slopes adjacent to US 101 in the Purdy Canyon area, in 2013, WSDOT removed 76,000 cubic yards (~7,600 dump truck loads) of dirt and material to reshape the slope of the adjacent hillside with the intent of slope stabilization. The area had been plagued with falling rocks and slope destabilization. • Heavy rains during the week of December 8, 2014 washed out approximately 75 feet of the northbound US 101 shoulder 2.2 miles south of Beacon Point Road. Crews working for 15 Photo Source: Department of Ecology 5/8/1999, #99-25-7 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-9 September 2023 WSDOT built a large retaining wall and repaired a broken culvert on US 101 at milepost 316.5 to help stabilize a steep slope below the highway. By installing the retaining wall and repairing the broken culvert, the State reduced the potential for future slides. See Figure 8-10 for the before and after illustrations of the project. • Figure 8-11 illustrates a portion of SR 302 (North of East Victor Road) that has been repeatedly damaged as a result of erosion under the surface of the highway. New culverts and replacement of the structure was completed in 2017. The culverts running under this section of SR 302 were moving downslope. • January 2022 – Heavy rains caused several landslides along a 1.5 mile stretch of roadway along the Purdy Canyon Road south of the Skokomish Tribal Center. • Heavy rains in February 2022 again impacted the county with road closures when Highway 302 east of Victor was again closed after sloughing of land beneath the roadway led to an 80- foot section to settle more than six inches (see Figure 8-12). While open to some local travelers, the roadway was closed to all travelers at attempting to connect between Highways 3 and 16, requiring a 22-mile detour via Highway 16 in Gorst. A WDOT spokesperson reported to the Kitsap Sun that portions of the highway are frequently impacted by a slow- moving “ancient” landslide (Kitsap Sun).16 Figure 8-8 Highway Closure at Jorstad Landslide – Winter 1998-1999 16 Kitsap Sun. Highway 302 in Mason County Closed. March 1, 2022. Accessed 8 Feb 2023. Available online at: Highway 302 in Mason County closed following heavy rains (kitsapsun.com) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-10 September 2023 Figure 8-9 Lake Kokanee Landslide, South of Lake Cushman Photo Courtesy of Washington State Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologists, taken April 9, 2009 Figure 8-10 Before and After Pictures of SR 101/ 2.2 miles South of Beacon Pt. Road Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-11 September 2023 Figure 8-11 SR 302 Slope Erosion Near Victor Figure 8-12 Highway 302 Landslide East of Victor (2022) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-12 September 2023 Figure 8-13 Washington DNR Recorded Landslide Data (2017) Figure 8-13 illustrates WA DNR landslide data as of 2017. Figure 8-14 illustrates the areas of previous landslides, as well as areas of steep slopes of 40 percent or greater based on Washington State Department of Natural Resources data (2017, 2022). Figure 8-15 illustrates the landslide hazard areas with an aerial imagery background. Information contained in Table 8-1 was captured from Washington State Department of Transportation (WDOT) sources, identifying some of the projects which have been completed in Mason County by WDOT in an effort to rectify on-going landslide issues. The table is not all inclusive of all efforts taken to restore roadways in the County. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-13 September 2023 Figure 8-14 Steep Slope Landslide Hazard Areas (2023) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-14 September 2023 Figure 8-15 Landslide Hazard Area with Aerial Imagry Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-15 September 2023 Table 8-1 Mason County State Highways Slide Repair Costs (1925-2009) Route Date Project Cost* US 101 1925 Hoodsport/Duckabush Slides $10,594.00 US 101 8/31/1965 Lilliwaup Slope Stabilization $45,353.00 SR 3 5/13/1970 Belfair Vicinity Slide $106,153.00 US 101 1/27/1975 Jorstad Creek Slide $95,391.00 US 101 7/19/1999 Hoodsport Slide $296,203.00 SR 3 11/29/2001 Allyn Vicinity Slide $2,746,402.00 US 101 7/27/2000 Lilliwaup Vicinity Slide $733,831.00 US 101 8/1/2000 MP 322.3 Slide $576,067.00 US 101 2/5/2001 MP 321 and 322 vicinity slides $3,371,919.00 US 101 1/28/2008 Lilliwaup Vicinity Slide $940,916.00 US 101 8/1/2008 Sunnyside Slope $420,659.00 US 101 2008 Holiday Hills $463,095.00 US 101 2009 Hoodsport Vicinity Slope $179,973.00 SR 108 2009 Slide Repair .8 miles West of Eich Road $150,000.00 Total $10,136,556.00 Figures represent estimated contract costs from WSDOT files; design and construction oversight was additional; figures represent costs incurred at time of construction – not inflated. * 8.2.3 Severity Landslides destroy property and infrastructure, and can have a long -lasting effect on the environment and can take the lives of people. Nationally, landslides account for more than $2 billion in losses annually and result in an estimated 25 to 50 deaths a year (Spiker and Gori, 2003; Schuster and Highland, 2001; Schuster, 1996). Washington is one of seven states listed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being especially vulnerable to severe land stability problems. Topographic and geologic factors cause certain areas of Mason County to be highly susceptible to landslides. Ground saturation and variability in rainfall patterns are also important factors affecting slope stability in areas susceptible to landslides. Strong earthquake shaking can cause landslides on slopes that are otherwise stable. 8.2.4 Frequency Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods, or wildfires, so landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. Landslides Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-16 September 2023 typically occur during and after major storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms and flood events that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. While the County has not received a disaster declaration specifically for a landslide, there have been 11 disaster declarations which have included mud- or land-slides which occurred in conjunction with severe storm events since 1956. However, some type of landslide event occurs almost annually within the planning region, in some cases, more than 10 slides in the planning area have been reported as a result of a single weather event. A specific recurrence interval has not been established by geologists, but historical data indicates several successive years of slide activities, followed by dormant periods. Landslides are most likely to occur during periods of higher than average rainfall. The ground in many instances is already saturated prior to the onset of a major storm, which increases the likelihood of significant landslides to occur. Precipitation influences the timing of landslides on three scales: total annual rainfall, monthly rainfall, and single precipitation events. In general, landslides are most likely during periods of higher than average rainfall. The ground must be saturated prior to the onset of a major storm for significant landslides to occur. Studies conducted by the USGS have identified two precipitation thresholds to help ident ify when landslides are likely (USGS, 2007) :17 • Cumulative Precipitation Threshold —A measure of precipitation over the last 18 days, indicating when the ground is wet enough to be susceptible to landslides. Rainfall of 3.5 to 5.3 inches is required to exceed this threshold, depending on how much rain falls in the last 3 days. • Intensity Duration Threshold —A measure of rainfall during a storm, indicating when it is raining hard enough to cause multiple landslides if the ground is already wet. These thresholds are most likely to be crossed during the rainy season. The 2007 USGS study indicates that by comparing recent and forecast rainfall amounts to the thresholds, meteorologists, geologists, and city officials can help people know when to be prepared for landslides. The thresholds as developed and tested are accurate, but imperfect indicators of when landslides may occur. During the study, statistical analysis of landslides that occurred between 1978 and 2003 showed that 85% occurred when the Cumulative Precipitation Threshold was exceeded. “While the thresholds are felt to work best in areas along the east side of Puget Sound, from Tacoma to Everett….they can also give preliminary guidance in the eastern part of Mason County” (USGS, 2007). Review of historic disasters provides the following breakdown: January experienced five (5) landslides - the month in which most landslides historically have occurred, followed by 17 USGS Landslide Hazards in the Seattle, Washington, Area. Accessed 1 March 2023. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3005/pdf/FS07-3005_508.pdf Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-17 September 2023 December, with four (4) disaster-level recorded weather events which included landslide. March and November each recorded one (1) weather event which included landslide. It should be noted that while it is recorded as a single incident, there are most often many landslides associated with each event. 8.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 8.3.1 Overview Historical occurrences, combined with analysis of the slope and the type of soil, are the most effective indicator of areas at risk to landslide. The Washington Department of Natural Resources collects data for local municipalities to use in determining historical events and, to some extent, landslide vulnerability. At present, for Mason County, it serves as the most reliable source available for planning purposes. Landslides have the potential to cause widespread damage throughout both rural and urban areas. While some landslides are more of a nuisance-type event, even the smallest of slides has the potential to injure or kill individuals and damage infrastructure. Given Mason County’s relatively steep slopes in certain areas, the various types of soils, and its historical patterns of previous slide occurrences, the landslide hazard is a significant concern for the planning partners. Review of the DNR data illustrates high areas of vulnerability in the Hood Canal area, as well as in the Olympic National Forest. Areas within Lilliwaup, Hoodsport, Potlatch, and Belfair all have a high number of previously reported landslides. Landslide hazard areas are those identified by Washington State DNR as having previous landslide events, and includes areas of slopes with a slope greater than or equal to 40 percent (or 21.8 degrees). It should be noted that this data is for mitigation planning purposes only, and should not be considered for life safety matters. No landslide hazard analysis was conducted, but rather, only reprojection of existing data. Additional landslide data is available at: Landslides | WA - DNR Warning Time Unlike flood hazards which often are predictable, mass movements or landslides are generally unpredictable, with little or no advanced warning. The speed of onset and velocity associated with a slide event can have devastating impacts. While some methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and provide some indicators (potentially) with respect to the amount of time prior to failure, exact science is not available. Mass movements can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of movement may range from a slow creep of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material, and water content. Generally accepted warning signs for landslide activity include: • Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before; • New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks; • Soil moving away from foundations; • Ancillary structures (decks or patios) tilting or moving relative to the main house; Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-18 September 2023 • Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations; • Broken water lines and other underground utilities; • Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences; • Offset fence lines; • Sunken or down-dropped road beds; • Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity; • Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped; • Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating frames out of plumb; • A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears; • Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together. It is possible, based on historical occurrences, to determine what areas are at a higher risk. Assessing the geology, vegetation, and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in these predictions; such an analysis is beyond the scope of this planning effort. However, there is no practical warning system for individual landslides. Historical events remain the best indicators of potential landslide activity, but it is generally impossible to determine with precision the size of a slide event or when an event will occur. Increased precipitation in the form of snow or rain increases the potential for landslide activity. Steep slopes also increase the potential for slides, especially when combined with specific types of soil. Within Washington State, in a partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) monitors conditions that could produce shallow landslides. Landslide warning information can be viewed at WDNR’s website. 8.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety Population vulnerable to landslides in the area would include not only the individuals living in the landslide prone areas, but also those traveling through the area given the high level of tourism, particularly when considering seasonal increases in tourism to the area, and the high number of vacation homes. Also to be taken into account when determining affected population are the area-wide impacts on transportation systems and the isolation of residents who may not be directly impacted, but whose ability to ingress and egress is restricted, such as areas along Highway 101 in the Hood Canal Area (among others) which have a high transient population of tourists, especially during summertime months. Finally, Mason County’s high population of retirees (higher than state average), may increase the level of first-responder requirements for residents whose structures were not directly impacted but who were affected by power outages or lack of logistical support, etc. Landslides can also damage water and wastewater treatment facilities, potentially harming water quality, and disrupt communication lines. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-19 September 2023 8.3.3 Impact on Property Landslides affect private property and public infrastructure and facilities. The predominant land use in the planning area is single-family residential, much of it supporting multiple families. In addition, there are many small businesses in the area as well as large commercial industries and government facilities. Development in landslide hazard area is guided by building code and the critical area ordinance to prevent the acceleration of manmade and natural geological hazards, and to neutralize or reduce the risk to the property owner or adjacent properties from development activities. The Mason County Resource Ordinance requires, a at a minimum, a geological assessment for development within 300 feet of slopes between 15% and 40%, and a geotechnical report for slopes over 40% (see Microsoft Word - Resource Ordinance 10-02-2017.docx (masoncountywa.gov)). The ordinance also requires a 50-foot vegetated buffer at the top or toe of a slope. For mitigation planning purposes only, and not specific to the County’s ordinance, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Landslide Dataset was utilized to identify areas of historic events. In addition, slopes identified as being forty (40) percent or steeper were included in this analysis. The acres of the planning area exposed to the landslide hazard in the planning area are summarized in Table 8-2. Data presented in these maps and tables are not a substitute for site- specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Table 8-2 Acres of Landslide Hazard Areas by Slope or Type Ju r i s d i c t i o n No S l o p e (< 1 5 % o r < 8 . 5 3 ° ) Ge n t l e S l o p e s (1 5 % - 40 % o r 8 . 5 3 ° - 21 . 8 ° ) St e e p S l o p e s (4 0 % o r > 2 1 . 8 ° ) Un k n o w n L a n d s l i d e T y p e Ty p e N o t S p e c i f i e d / B l a n k Sh a l l o w U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d La n d s l i d e s Hy p e r c o n c e n t r a t e d F l o w s De b r i s F l o w De b r i s S l i d e & Av a l a n c h e s Ro c k F a l l o r T o p p l e De e p -Se a t e d U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d La n d s l i d e s De e p -Se a t e d E a r t h f l o w L a n d s l i d e s De e p -Se a t e d R o t a t i o n a l L a n d s l i d e s Mason County, WA 493,720 124,246 4,119 1,904 10,142 359 3.9 363 198 0.3 15,310.9 466 2.9 Unincorporated Mason Co. 486,609 124,189 4,119 1,900 8,516 359 3.9 363 198 0.3 7,998 386 1.5 City of Shelton 3,688 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Town of Allyn 1,151 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 4.8 0.0 Town of Belfair 2,271 14.6 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 179.5 0.0 0.0 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-20 September 2023 8.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 illustrate the critical facilities and infrastructure at risk within the various hazard areas as identified. Loss of these structures would have the potential to impact not only loss of services, but in some instances, loss of continuity of government due to the type of structure lost. Table 8-3 Critical Facilities in Proximity to Historic Landslide or Unstable Slope Zones Hazard Zone Go v e r n m e n t Fu n c t i o n Co m m u n i c a t i o n s Me d i c a l Ha z a r d o u s Ma t e r i a l s Pr o t e c t i v e Se r v i c e s Po w e r Ot h e r Wa t e r Wa s t e w a t e r Total Within Historic Landslide or Unstable Slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Within 500 ft. of Historic Landslide or Unstable Slope 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 22 0 28 Within 1,000 ft. of Historic Landslide or Unstable Slope 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 16 2 26 Table 8-4 Critical Facilities within Proximity of Landslide Gentle & Steep Slope Zones Hazard Zone Go v e r n m e n t F u n c t i o n Co m m u n i c a t i o n s Me d i c a l Ha z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s Pr o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s Po w e r Ot h e r Wa t e r Wa s t e w a t e r Total No Slope (< 15% or < 8.53°) 20 2 1 4 47 20 7 168 24 293 Gentle Slopes (15% - 40% or 8.53° - 21.8°) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steep Slopes (40% or >21.8°) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Within 1,000 ft of Gentle Slopes (15% - 40% or 8.53° - 21.8°) 11 2 0 4 19 9 0 59 12 116 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-21 September 2023 Several types of infrastructure are exposed to mass movements, including transportation facilities, airports, bridges, and water, sewer, and power infrastructure. Highly susceptible areas include mountain and coastal roads and transportation infrastructure. All infrastructure and transportation falling within the hazard areas are considered vulnerable until more information becomes available. Significant infrastructure in the planning region exposed to mass movements includes the following: • Roads—Access to major roads is crucial to life-safety after a disaster event and to response and recovery operations. Landslides can block egress and ingress on roads, causing isolation for neighborhoods, traffic problems and delays for public and private transportation. This can result in economic losses for businesses. • Bridges and Boat/Ferry Docks—Landslides can significantly impact road bridges and boat/ ferry docks. Mass movements can knock out bridge and dock abutments, causing significant misalignment and restricting access and usages, as well as significantly weaken the soil supporting the structures, making them hazardous for use. • Power Lines—Power lines are generally elevated above steep slopes, but the towers supporting them can be subject to landslides. A landslide could trigger failure of the soil beneath a tower, causing collapse and ripping down the lines. Power and communication failures due to landslides can create problems for vulnerable populations and businesses. 8.3.5 Impact on Economy A landslide can have catastrophic impact on the private sector and governmental agencies. Economic losses include damage costs and lost revenue and taxes. Damaged bridges, roadways, marinas, boat docks, municipal airports all can have a significant impact on the economy. Damages in this capacity could have a significant economic impact on not only Mason County, but also other areas of the state. The impact on commodity flow from a significant landslide shutting down major access routes would not only limit the resources available for citizens’ use, but also would cause economic impact on businesses in the area. Debris could impact cargo staging areas and lands needed for business operations. With highway 101 serving as a primary transportation route in the area, use of the highway reduces travel time between the inland Puget Sound area and the peninsula region, compared to requiring vehicles to travel much greater distances around the sound on land. Impacts would also significantly reduce the tourism industry within the County. 8.3.6 Impact on Environment Environmental problems as a result of mass movements are numerous. Landslides that fall into water bodies, wetlands or streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolonged periods of time due to landslides. With impact already occurring due to increased sediment loads in the floodplain, landslides could cause additional impact within the Skokomish River (and other) watersheds. 8.3.7 Impact from Climate Change Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration. Increase in global temperature could affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water, raise sea levels, and increase beach. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-22 September 2023 wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these factors would increase the probability for landslide occurrences. 8.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Under the Growth Management Act, the County is required to address geologic hazards within its Critical Areas Ordinance, which it does. Continued application of land use and zoning regulations, as well as implementation of the International Building Codes, will assist in reducing the risk of impact from landslide hazards. Certain areas of the County, such as Allyn, have experienced a higher than normal growth when compared to other areas of the County over the course of the last two years (post-COVID). Mason County is also attempting to expand its business base, which will increase economic vitality by providing businesses that stimulate retail sales and services, and increased tourism. As a relatively high retirement and tourist destination for Washington, continued land use supported by regulatory authority which supports economic growth but practices smart planning will be vital. All planning partners are committed to assessing the landslide risk and developing mitigation efforts to reduce impact or enhance resiliency. There are four basic strategies to mitigate landslide risk: • Stabilization • Protection • Avoidance • Maintenance and monitoring. Stabilization seeks to counter one or more key failure mechanisms necessary to prevent slope failure. The other three strategies seek to avoid, protect against or limit associated impacts. Development of this mitigation plan creates an opportunity to enhance and develop wise land use decision-making policies. It allows for the expansion of capital improvement plans to sustain future growth through the use of these four basic strategies. Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration which can saturate soils beyond capacity. Increase in global temperature could further exacerbate this by affecting the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water, further raising sea levels, and increasing beach erosion along the County’s coastline. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. As parts of the County maintain fairly dense forested areas, such an incident would be significant. All of these factors would increase the probability of landslides. 8.5 ISSUES Landslides throughout the County occur as a result of soil conditions that have been affected by severe storms, groundwater, or human development. The worst-case scenario for landslide hazards in the planning area would generally correspond to a severe storm that had heavy rain and caused flooding. Landslides are most likely during late fall or early spring —months when the water tables are high. After heavy rains during October to April, soils become saturated with water. As water seeps downward through upper soils that may consist of permeable sands and gravels and accumulates on Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-23 September 2023 impermeable silt, it will cause weakness and destabilization in the slope. A short intense storm could cause saturated soil to move, resulting in landslides. As rains continue, the groundwater table rises, adding to the weakening of the slope. Gravity, a small tremor or earthquake, poor drainage, steep bank cutting, a rising groundwater table, and poor soil exacerbate hazardous conditions. Mass movements are becoming more of a concern as development moves outside of urban centers and into areas less developed in terms of infrastructure. While most mass movements would be isolated events affecting specific areas, the areas impacted can be very large. It is probable that private and public property, including infrastructure, will be affected. Mass movements could affect bridges that pass over landslide prone ravines and knock out ferry services. Road obstructions caused by mass movements would create isolation problems for residents and businesses in sparsely developed areas, and impact commodity flows. Property owners exposed to steep slopes may suffer damage to property or structures. Landslides carrying vegetation such as shrubs and trees may cause a break in utility lines, cutting off power and communication access to residents; they may block ingress and egress to areas of the County, especially for areas with limited roadways. Important issues associated with landslides throughout Mason County include the following: • There are existing structures in landslide risk areas throughout the County. The degree of vulnerability of these structures depends on the codes and standards the structures were constructed to. Information to this level of detail is not currently available. • Future development could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas. • Portions of the County are surrounded by fairly steep banks and cliffs. Coastal erosion causes landslides as the ground washes away. • Mapping and assessment of landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science become available, assessments of landslide risk should be re-evaluated. LiDAR data would greatly enhance the ability to determine landslide hazards, as well as oth er hazards. • While the impact of climate change on landslides in general is uncertain, the impact of sea level rise caused by increased temperatures has already enhanced coastal erosion within the planning area. As climate change continues to impact atmospheric conditions, the exposure to landslide risks is likely to increase. • Landslides cause many negative environmental consequences, including water quality degradation, degradation of fish spawning areas, and destruction of vegetation along waterways, ultimately impacting the flow of water bodies. • The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as earthquake, flood, and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation goals with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. 8.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from Landslide throughout the area is highly likely, but the impact is more limited with respect to geographic extent. The area experiences some level of landslides annually. The coastal bluff areas, and areas within the unincorporated areas of the County have identifiable landslide risk. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Landslide Bridgeview Consulting 8-24 September 2023 While there are areas where no landslide risk is identified, landslides can nonetheless occur on fairly low slopes, and areas with no slopes can be impacted by slides at a distance. Construction in critical areas, which includes geologically sensitive areas such as landslide areas, is regulated; however, beyond the structural impact, secondary impact to infrastructure causing isolation or commodity shortages also has the potential to impact the region. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 2.95, with overall vulnerability determined to be a high level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 9. SEVERE WEATHER Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. It includes thunderstorms, downbursts, wind, tornadoes, waterspouts, and snowstorms. Severe weather differs from extreme weather, which refers to unusual weather events at the extremes of the historical distribution. General severe weather covers wide geographic areas; localized severe weather affects more limited geographic areas. The severe weather event that most typically impacts the planning area is a damaging windstorm, which causes storm surges exacerbating coastal erosion. Flooding associated with severe weather is discussed in Chapter 8. 9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Mason County has a predominantly maritime climate, influenced by the Olympic Mountain Range. 9.1.1 Semi-Permanent High- and Low-Pressure Areas Over the North Pacific Ocean During summer and fall, the circulation of air around a high-pressure area over the north Pacific brings a prevailing westerly and northwesterly flow of comparatively dry, cool, and stable air into the Pacific Northwest. As the air moves inland, it becomes warmer and drier, resulting in a dry season. In the winter and spring, the high pressure is further south and low pressure prevails in the northeast Pacific. Circulation of air around both pressure centers brings a prevailing southwesterly and westerly flow of mild, moist air into the Pacific Northwest. Condensation occurs as the air moves inland over the cooler land and rises along the windward slopes of the mountains. This results in a wet season beginning in late October or November, reaching a peak in winter, and gradually decreasing by late spring. DEFINITIONS Freezing Rain—The result of rain occurring when the temperature is below the freezing point. The rain freezes on impact, resulting in a layer of glaze ice up to an inch thick. In a severe ice storm, an evergreen tree 60 feet high and 30 feet wide can be burdened with up to six tons of ice, creating a threat to power and telephone lines and transportation routes. • Hail Storm—Any thunderstorm which produces hail that reaches the ground is known as a hailstorm. Hail has a diameter of 0.20 inches or more. Hail is composed of transparent ice or alternating layers of transparent and translucent ice at least 0.04 inches thick. Although the diameter of hail is varied, in the United States, the average observation of damaging hail is between 1 inch and golf ball-sized 1.75 inches. Stones larger than 0.75 inches are usually large enough to cause damage. Severe Local Storm—”Microscale” atmospheric systems. These storms may cause a great deal of destruction and even death, but their impact is generally confined to a small area. Typical impacts are on transportation infrastructure and utilities. Thunderstorm—A storm featuring heavy rains, strong winds, thunder and lightning, typically about 15 miles in diameter and lasting about 30 minutes. Hail and tornadoes are also dangers associated with thunderstorms. Lightning is a serious threat to human life. Heavy rains over a small area in a short time can lead to flash flooding. Tornado— Most tornadoes have wind speeds less than 110 miles per hour are about 250 feet across, and travel a few miles before dissipating. The most extreme tornadoes can attain wind speeds of more than 300 miles per hour, stretch more than two miles across, and stay on the ground for dozens of miles. They are measured using the Enhanced Fujita Scale, ranging from EF0 to EF5. Windstorm—A storm featuring violent winds. Southwesterly winds are associated with strong storms moving onto the coast from the Pacific Ocean. Southern winds parallel to the coastal mountains are the strongest and most destructive winds. Windstorms tend to damage ridgelines that face into the winds. Winter Storm—A storm having significant snowfall, ice, and/or freezing rain; the quantity of precipitation varies by elevation. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-2 September 2023 West of the Cascade Mountains, summers are cool and relatively dry while winters are mild, wet, and generally cloudy. Measurable rainfall occurs on 150 days each year in interior valleys and on 190 days in the mountains and along the coast. Thunderstorms occur up to 10 days each year over the lower elevations and up to 15 days over the mountains. Damaging hailstorms are rare in western Washington. During July and August, the driest months, two to four weeks can pass with only a few showers; however, in December and January, the wettest months, precipitation is frequently recorded on 25 days or more each month. Snowfall is light in the lower elevations and heavier in the mountains. During the wet season, rainfall is usually of light to moderate intensity and continuous over a long period rather than occurring in heavy downpours for brief periods; heavier intensities occur along the windward slopes of the mountains. 9.1.2 Atmospheric Phenomenon Atmospheric rivers (see Figure 9-1) are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – like rivers in the sky – that transport most of the water vapor outside of the tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the averag e flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow. Those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor, and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding. These events can disrupt travel, induce mudslides, and cause catastrophic damage to life and property. A well-known example is the “Pineapple Express,” a strong atmospheric river that is capable of bringing moisture from the tropics near Hawaii over to the U.S. West Coast. 18 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle is a scientific term that describes the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific. ENSO is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. Though ENSO is a single climate phenomenon, it has three states, or phases, it can be in. The two opposite phases, “El Niño” and “La Niña,” require certain changes in both the ocean and the atmosphere because ENSO is a coupled climate phenomenon. “Neutral” is in the middle of the continuum. • La Nina (translated from Spanish as “little girl”) is a natural ocean-atmospheric phenomenon marked by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern Pacific Ocean near the equator. La Nina typically brings above-average precipitation and colder-than-average temperatures along the northern tier of the U.S., along with below- average precipitation and above-average temperatures across the South. 18 NOAA. What are atmospheric rivers? Accessed 9 Feb 2023. Available online at: https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-3 September 2023 • An El Nino (translated from Spanish as “little boy”) is marked by warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the region. Typical El Niño effects are likely to develop over North America during the upcoming winter season. Those include warmer-than-average temperatures over western and central Canada, and over the western and northern United States. Wetter-than-average conditions are likely over portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast and Florida, while drier-than-average conditions can be expected in the Ohio Valley and the Pacific Northwest. The presence of El Niño can significantly influence weather patterns, ocean conditions, and marine fisheries across large portions of the globe for an extended period of time. Figure 9-1 Atmospheric Rivers 9.1.3 Thunderstorms A thunderstorm is a rain event that includes thunder and lightning. A thunderstorm is classified as “severe” when it contains one or more of the following: hail with a diameter of three-quarter inch or greater, winds gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or tornado. Thunderstorms have three stages (see Figure 9-2): Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-4 September 2023 Figure 9-2 The Thunderstorm Life Cycle Three factors cause thunderstorms: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising once disturbed), and a lifting mechanism to provide the disturbance. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which warms the air above it. If this warm surface air is forced to rise (hills or mountains can cause rising motion, as can the interaction of warm air and cold air or wet air and dry air) it will continue to rise as long as it weighs less and stays warmer than the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the earth surface to the upper atmosphere (the process of convection). The water vapors it contains begins to cool and it condenses into a cloud. The cloud eventually grows upward into areas where the temperature is below freezing. Some of the water vapor turns to ice and some of it turns into water droplets. Both have electrical charges. Ice particles usually have positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative charges. When the charges build up enough, they are discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the sound heard as thunder. There are four types of thunderstorms: • Single-Cell Thunderstorms—Single-cell thunderstorms usually last 20 to 30 minutes. A true single-cell storm is rare, because the gust front of one cell often triggers the growth of another. Most single-cell storms are not usually severe, but a single-cell storm can produce a brief severe weather event. When this happens, it is called a pulse severe storm. • Multi-Cell Cluster Storm—A multi-cell cluster is the most common type of thunderstorm. The multi-cell cluster consists of a group of cells, moving as one unit, with each cell in a different phase of the thunderstorm life cycle. Mature cells are usually found at the center of the cluster and dissipating cells at the downwind edge. Multi-cell cluster storms can produce moderate-size hail, flash floods and weak tornadoes. Each cell in a multi-cell cluster lasts only about 20 minutes; the multi-cell cluster itself may persist for several hours. This type of storm is usually more intense than a single cell storm. • Multi-Cell Squall Line—A multi-cell line storm, or squall line, is a long line of storms with a continuous well-developed gust front at the leading edge. The storms can be solid, or have gaps and breaks in the line. Squall lines can produce hail up to golf-ball size, heavy rainfall, and weak tornadoes, but they are best known as the producers of strong downdrafts. Occasionally, a strong downburst will accelerate a portion of the squall line ahead of the rest of the line. This produces what is called a bow echo. Bow echoes can develop with isolated cells as well as squall lines. Bow echoes are easily detected on radar but are difficult to observe visually. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-5 September 2023 • Super-Cell Storm—A super-cell is a highly organized thunderstorm that poses a high threat to life and property. It is similar to a single-cell storm in that it has one main updraft, but the updraft is extremely strong, reaching speeds of 150 to 175 miles per hour. Super-cells are rare. The main characteristic that sets them apart from other thunderstorms is the presence of rotation. The rotating updraft of a super-cell (called a mesocyclone when visible on radar) helps the super-cell to produce extreme weather events, such as giant hail (more than 2 inches in diameter), strong downbursts of 80 miles an hour or more, and strong to violent tornadoes. As of 2021 (last full year reported) Washington ranked 48th nationwide for lightning strikes with 55,779 recorded (down five from 2020). For lightning strike density (by area), Washington ranked 50th. During 2021, NOAA reported 11 fatalities, below the previously recorded low of 16 deaths in 2017 (see Figure 9-3). None of the fatalities occurred in Washington State. Based on an analysis updated in 2021 by John Jensenius, Jr., of the National Lightning Safety Council, victims of lightning fatalities were again most often engaged in leisure activities (eight), followed by work-related activities (three). Of the 11 fatalities, all but one was male. On average, lightning strikes start 14 percent of wildfires annually in the United States, with those fires resulting in 58 percent of the acreage burned each year (Vaisala, 2021). 2021 also saw historic severe weather outbreaks impact central and eastern portions of the United States in mid-December, a month during which thunderstorms are customarily low. Figure 9-3 Lightening Fatalities 2011-2021 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-6 September 2023 9.1.4 Damaging Winds Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph. Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe weather reports in the lower 48 states and is more common than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a dama ge path extending for hundreds of miles. There are seven types of damaging winds: • Straight-line winds —Any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation; this term is used mainly to differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms produce some straight-line winds as a result of outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft. • Downdrafts —A small-scale column of air that rapidly sinks toward the ground. • Downbursts—A strong downdraft with horizontal dimensions larger than 2.5 miles resulting in an outward burst or damaging winds on or near the ground. Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and spread out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers too weak to produce thunder. • Microbursts—A small concentrated downburst that produces an outward burst of damaging winds at the surface. Microbursts are generally less than 2.5 miles across and short-lived, lasting only 5 to 10 minutes, with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet microburst is accompanied by heavy precipitation at the surface. Dry microbursts, common in places like the high plains and the intermountain west, occur with little or no precipitation reaching the ground. • Gust front—A gust front is the leading edge of rain-cooled air that clashes with warmer thunderstorm inflow. Gust fronts are characterized by a wind shift, temperature drop, and gusty winds out ahead of a thunderstorm. Sometimes the winds push up air above them, forming a shelf cloud or detached roll cloud. • Derecho—A derecho is a widespread thunderstorm wind caused when new thunderstorms form along the leading edge of an outflow boundary (the boundary formed by horizontal spreading of thunderstorm-cooled air). The word “derecho” is of Spanish origin and means “straight ahead.” Thunderstorms feed on the boundary and continue to reproduce. Derechos typically occur in summer when complexes of thunderstorms form over plains, producing heavy rain and severe wind. The damaging winds can last a long time and cover a large area. • Bow Echo—A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straight-line winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for several hours, and produce extensive wind damage at the ground. There are four main types of windstorm tracks that impact the Pacific Northwest as identified in Figure 9-4. These four tracks are distinguished by two basic windstorm patterns that have emerged in the Puget Sound Region: the South Wind Event and the East Wind Event. South wind events are generally large-scale events that affect large portions of Western Washington and possibly Western Oregon. On occasional cases, they have reached as far south as Northern California. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-7 September 2023 Source: Oregon Climate Service, 2015 Figure 9-4 Windstorm Tracks Impacting the Pacific Northwest In contrast, easterly wind events are more limited. High pressure on the east side of the Cascade Mountain Range creates airflow over the peaks and passes, and through the funneling effect of the valleys, the wind increases dramatically in speed. As it descends into these valleys and then exits into the lowlands, the wind can pick up enough speed to damage buildings, rip down power lines, and destroy fences. Once it leaves the proximity of the Cascade foothills, the wind tends to die down rapidly. All of Mason County is in an 85-mph wind zone. Within this zone there are four (4) zones of exposure, three (3) of which are identified in Mason County and that are utilized to guide structure development (2006 International Building Code). These exposure zones further identify areas that are at higher risk from impacts of high winds. The closer development is to open waters and on top of steep cliffs, the higher the design criteria that is required through building code. Based on the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-8 September 2023 International Building Code, the zones are broken down into surface roughness categories and are defined as follows: ➢ Surface Roughness B. Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas or other terrain with numerous closely spaced obstructions having the size of single-family dwellings or larger. ➢ Surface Roughness C. Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30 feet (9144 mm). This category includes flat open country, grasslands, and all water surfaces in hurricane- prone regions. ➢ Surface Roughness D. Flat, unobstructed areas, and water surfaces outside hurricane-prone regions. This category includes smooth mud flats, salt flats and unbroken ice. Windstorms impact all of Mason County on a regular basis. The strongest winds are generally from the south or southwest and occur during fall and winter. Some are much more damaging than others. For those like the Hanukkah Eve Windstorm of 2006 (see Figure 9-5), the impact on the public can be severe. Mason County was significantly impacted. Torrential rains overwhelmed sewage treatment plants, and when plants lost power, raw sewage flooded into Puget Sound in Mason County. The strongest windstorm was the 1962 Columbus Day Storm, which was the strongest non-tropical windstorm to hit the lower 48 states. It traveled about 40 mph from Northern California to the Canadian border and east as far as Montana. The storm killed 46 people, destroyed more than 50,000 homes, left another 469,000 without power, caused $235 million in property damage and flattened 15 billion board feet of timber worth an estimated $750 million. Severe winds also occurred during the Inauguration Day storm of 1993 (see Figure 9-6) . Other severe storms that have severely impacted Mason County have occurred in 1971, 1973, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015 (2 events), 2020, and 2021. 9.1.5 Hail Storms Hail occurs when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere where they freeze into ice. Recent studies suggest that super-cooled water may accumulate on frozen particles near the back side of a storm as they are pushed forward across and above the updraft by the prevailing winds near the top of the storm. Eventually, the hailstones encounter downdraft air and fall to the ground. Hailstones grow two ways: by wet growth or dry growth. In wet growth, a tiny piece of ice is in an area where the air temperature is below freezing, but not super cold. When the tiny piece of ice collides with a super-cooled drop, the water does not freeze on the ice immediately. Instead, liquid water spreads across tumbling hailstones and slowly freezes. Since the process is slow, air bubbles can escape, resulting in a layer of clear ice. Dry growth hailstones grow when the air temperature is well below freezing and the water droplet freezes immediately as it collides with the ice particle. The air bubbles are “frozen” in place, leaving cloudy ice. Figure 9-5 Hanukkah Eve Peak Wind Gusts Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-9 September 2023 Figure 9-6 Inauguration Day Storm Peak Wind Gusts 9.1.6 Ice Storms The National Weather Service defines an ice storm as a storm that results in the accumulation of at least 0.25 inches of ice on exposed surfaces. Ice storms occur when rain falls from a warm, moist, layer of atmosphere into a below freezing, drier layer near the ground. The rain freezes on contact with the cold ground and exposed surfaces, causing damage to trees, utility wires, and structures (see Figure 9-7). Figure 9-7 Types of Precipitation Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-10 September 2023 9.1.7 Extreme Temperatures Extreme temperature includes both heat and cold events, which can have a significant impact on human health, commercial/agricultural businesses and primary and secondary effects on infrastructure (e.g., burst pipes and power failure). What constitutes “extreme cold” or “extreme heat” can vary across different areas of the country, based on what the population is accustomed to within the region (CDC, 2014). Extreme Cold Extreme cold events are when temperatures drop well below normal in an area. In regions relatively unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered “extreme cold.” Extreme cold can often accompany severe winter storms, with winds exacerbating the effects of cold temperatures by carrying away body heat more quickly, making it feel colder than is indicated by the actual temperature (known as wind chill). Figure 9-8 demonstrates the value of wind chill based on the ambient temperature and wind speed. Exposure to cold temperatures, whether indoors or outside, can lead to serious or life-threatening health problems such as hypothermia, cold stress, frostbite or freezing of the exposed extremities such as fingers, toes, nose, and ear lobes. Hypothermia occurs when the core body temperature is <95ºF. If persons exposed to excessive cold are unable to generate enough heat (e.g., through shivering) to maintain a normal core body temperature of 98.6ºF, their organs (e.g., brain, h eart, or kidneys) can malfunction. Extreme cold also can cause emergencies in susceptible populations, such as those without shelter, those who are stranded, or those who live in a home that is poorly insulated or without heat. Infants and the elderly are particularly at risk, but anyone can be affected. Extremely cold temperatures often accompany a winter storm, so individuals may have to cope with power failures and icy roads. Although staying indoors can help reduce the risk of injury on the ice, individuals may also face indoor hazards. Many homes will be too cold—either due to a power failure or because the heating system is not adequate for the weather. The use of space heaters and fireplaces to keep warm increases the risk of household fires and carbon monoxide poisoning. Figure 9-8 NWS Wind Chill Index Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-11 September 2023 During cold months, carbon monoxide may be high in some areas because the colder weather makes it difficult for car emission control systems to operate effectively. Carbon monoxide levels are typically higher during cold weather because the cold temperatures make combustion less complete and cause inversions that trap pollutants close to the ground (USEPA, 2009). Extreme Heat Temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several days or weeks are defined as extreme heat (FEMA, 2006; CDC, 2006). An extended period of extreme heat of three or more consecutive days is typically called a heat wave and is often accompanied by high humidity (Ready America, Date Unknown; NWS, 2005). There is no universal definition of a heat wave because the term is relative to the usual weather in a particular area. The term heat wave is applied both to routine weather variations and to extraordinary spells of heat which may occur only once a century (Meehl and Tebaldi, 2004). A basic definition of a heat wave implies that it is an extended period of unusually high atmosphere-related heat stress, which causes temporary modifications in lifestyle and which may have adverse health consequences for the affected population (Robinson, 2000). Figure 9-9 identifies some of those consequences and associated temperatures. 19 Certain populations are considered vulnerable or at greater risk during extreme heat events. These populations include, but are not limited to the following: the elderly age 65 and older, infants and young children under five years of age (see Figure 9-10), pregnant woman, the homeless or poor, the overweight, and people with mental illnesses, disabilities, and chronic diseases (NYS HMP, 2008). 19 NCDC, 2000 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-12 September 2023 Figure 9-9 Heat Stress Index Figure 9-10 Temperature Index for Children Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-13 September 2023 Figure 9-11 Weather Fatalities Figure 9-11 illustrates the number of weather fatalities based on 10-year and 30-year averages.20 Extreme heat is the number one weather-related cause of death in the U.S. over the 30-year average, followed by flood. Depending on severity, duration, and location; extreme heat events can create or provoke secondary hazards including, but not limited to, dust storms, droughts, wildfires, water shortages and power outages (FEMA, 2006; CDC, 2006). This could result in a broad and far-reaching set of impacts throughout a local area or entire region. Impacts could include significant loss of life and illness; economic costs in transportation, agriculture, production, energy, and infrastructure; and losses of ecosystems, wildlife habitats and water resources (Adams, Date Unknown; Meehl and Tebaldi, 2004; CDC, 2006; NYSDPC, 2008). 20 NOAA, 2023 (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml) (Most recently available at time of update.) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-14 September 2023 9.2 HAZARD PROFILE 9.2.1 Extent and Location The entire planning area is susceptible to the impacts of severe weather. Severe weather events customarily occur during the months of October to April, although they have occurred year-round. The County has been impacted by strong winds, rain, snow, or other precipitation, and often are accompanied by thunder or lightening (Mason County, 2010). Considerable snowfall does not customarily occur throughout the region. Communities in low-lying areas next to coastlines, rivers, streams, or lakes are more susceptible to flooding as a result of storm surge. Wind events are most damaging to areas of Mason County. Winds coming off of the Pacific Coast can have a significant impact on the planning region as a result of both the wind and associated storm surge (Hood Canal area). For the planning region as a whole, wind events are one of the most common weather-related incidents to occur, often times leaving the area without power, although customarily not for long, extended periods. Severe storms and weather affect transportation and utilities. Access across certain parts of the County is unpredictable as roads are vulnerable to damage from severe storms, storm surges, and landslide/erosion. Severe storms and storm surges can also cause flooding and channel migration. 9.2.2 Previous Occurrences Types of severe weather occurring within Mason County vary due to the topography of the area encompassing the planning area, but some level of severe weather or storm event impacts the area at least once annually, although not to the level of a disaster declaration. Events include thunderstorms, hailstorms, heavy precipitation, straight line winds, and damaging downburst winds. Less frequent severe weather phenomena include ocean squalls (along the coastal areas), heavy snowstorms, and ice storms, although all have occurred in the planning area. The most recent snow event occurred in December 2021 (County declared an emergency event due to snow, ice/freezing temperatures and rain combination impacting several mobile homes, collapsing car ports, etc.), which was ultimately declared as a presidential declaration in December 2022. The County has not experienced any tornado events, although there have been reported tornadoes in the surrounding counties. Since 1956, 12 severe weather events have been declared in the County. This equates to one declared incident every 5.4 years, with a probability of occurrence per year of 18.46 percent. One fatality has occurred, as a result of a severe storm event causing a landslide which struck a residence. Severe storms or weather events are the hazard which has impacted the county most frequently since 1956, followed by Flood events. FEMA ranks Severe Storms as the hazard of highest priority in the county. 9.2.3 Severity The most common problems associated with severe storms are immobility and loss of utilities. As indicated, the County has experienced one fatality as a result of a severe weather event. During severe storms, roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, ice or snow, or a landslide, which regularly occurs as a result of ground saturation from heavy rains often associated with severe weather events. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-15 September 2023 Power lines may also be downed due to high winds or ice accumulation, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power. Lightning can cause severe damage and injury. Physical damage to homes and facilities caused by wind, or by accumulation of snow or ice can also occur. Due to the limited amount of snow customarily received in the region, even a small accumulation of ice or snow can, and has, caused havoc on transportation systems due to hilly terrain, the level of experience of drivers to maneuver in snow and ice conditions, and the lack of snow clearing equipment and resources within the region, which is more rural in nature in many areas. Ice storms, especially when accompanied by high winds, can have an especially destructive impact within the planning region, with both being able to close major transportation corridors and bridges. Accumulation of ice on trees, power lines, communication towers and wiring, or other utility services can be crippling, and create additional hazards for residents, motorists and pedestrians. During the last 30 years, Western Washington has had an average annual snowfall of 11.4 inches per year, with the snowfall customarily occurring during November through March, although snow has fallen as late as April. Within Mason County, snowfall ranges an average of 3-5 inches, with approximately 2 days (averaged) per year with snow depths of 1 inch or more.21 Historical records in Western Washington are as follows: • January 1950 – One-day record for snow accumulation – 21 inches • January 1950 – One-month record for snow accumulation – 57 inches • 1968-1969 – Winter season record for snow accumulation – 67 inches Windstorms are common in the planning area, occurring many times throughout the year within Mason County. They are especially concerning for PUDs 1 and 3. The predicted wind speed given for wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a one-minute average, during which gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Tornadoes are potentially the most dangerous of local storms, but they are not common in the planning area. If a major tornado were to strike within the planning area, damage could be widespread. As a result of building stock age, fatalities could be high, with many people homeless for an extended period of time. Routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period, impacting commodities available for citizens. As a result of the heavily forested areas, debris accumulations would be high, causing additional difficulties with access along major arterials connecting the area to other parts of the state, further impacting logistical support and commodities. The extent (severity or magnitude) of extreme cold temperatures are generally measured through the wind chill temperature index. Wind Chill Temperature is the temperature that people and animals feel when outside and it is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin by the effects of wind and cold. As the wind increases, the body is cooled at a faster rate causing the skin’s temperature to drop (NWS, 2009). 21 USA.Com Mason County Weather: http://www.usa.com/mason-county-wa-weather.htm# Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-16 September 2023 9.2.4 Frequency Of the 12 severe weather events for Mason County identified in Chapter 3 (Table 3-1 and Table 3-2), most are related to high winds and associated other winter storm-type events such as heavy rains and landslides, and to a much lesser extent, snow. The planning area can expect to experience exposure to some type of severe weather event at least annually, with declared events occurring on average every 5.4 years. The probability of a severe weather event of some type occurring on an annual basis is 18.46 percent. Washington State Department of Ecology has estimated frequency intervals for wind speed as follows: WIND SPEEDS EXCEED FREQUENCY 55 MPH Annually 76 MPH ~ 5 years 83 MPH ~10 years 92 MPH ~25 years 100 MPH ~50 years 108 MPH ~100 years 9.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 9.3.1 Overview Severe weather incidents can and regularly do occur throughout the entire planning area. Similar events impact areas within the planning region differently, even though they are part of the same system. While in some instances some type of advanced warning is possible, as a result of climatic differences, topographic and relative distance to the coastline, the same system can be much more severe in certain areas of the County. Therefore, preparedness plays a significant contributor in the resilience of the citizens to withstand such events. A lack of data separating severe weather damage from flooding, windstorms, and landslide damage prevent a detailed analysis for exposure and vulnerability. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to severe weather. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns, as well as the response capabilities of local first responders. Warning Time Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of some severe storms. In some cases, this can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm, and the rapid changes which can also occur significantly increasing the impact of a weather event. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-17 September 2023 9.3.2 Impact on Life, Health and Safety The entire planning area is susceptible to severe weather events. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or above-ground power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out conditions, while populations in low-lying areas are at risk for possible flooding and landslides associated with the flooding as a result of heavy rains. Increased levels of precipitation in the form of snow also vary by area, with higher elevations being more susceptible to increased accumulations. Resultant secondary impacts from power outages during cold weather event, when combined with the high population of retired and elderly residents significantly impacts response capabilities and the risk factor associated with such weather incidents. Wi thin the densely wooded areas, increased fire danger during extreme heat conditions increases the likelihood of fire, which increases fire danger. Particularly vulnerable populations are the elderly and very young, low income, linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Extreme temperature variations, either heat or cold, are of significant concern on both the elderly and the young, increasing vulnerability of those populations. A number of storm events have cut off primary access routes to areas of the County for days at a time, in some instances for over six months. These storm events include both declared and non-declared incidents, as even minor incidents have the potential to impact ingress and egress. Such issues are of concern as a result of limited access for evacuation purposes by first responder if vital ALS is required, as well as for general evacuation purposes during a period where power is out, and individuals attempt to leave the area. Travel time can be increased significantly if alternate routes are used. PUDs 1 and 3 provide electricity to the planning area. Severe weather events can and have disrupted electricity in the planning area, on average though only a few times each year. When most power outages occur, they last for only a few hours, except in extreme outlying areas. The most significant event which caused power to be out for in excess of seven days was as a result of the 1996 ice storm. Since completion of the 2018 HMP, the area has been impacted by some form of severe winter storm or snow storm which have caused power outages lasting 12 hours or more. The December 2021 - January 2022 Severe Winter Storm impacted the most number of residents, with power in some areas not restored for four days. The large population of retirees and the higher rate of disabled individuals living in the area are of significant concern to the planning partners throughout the region when severe weather events occur due to the higher levels of vulnerable populations. 9.3.3 Impact on Property Currently data identifies that there are in excess of 33,600 buildings in the planning area. Most of these buildings are residential. Within Mason County, approximately 58 percent of structures were built after 1980; however, in the City of Shelton, only 34 percent of structures were built after 1980, meaning a high percentage of structures in Shelton could be impacted by significant we ather events as many were built without the influence of a structural building code with provisions for wind loads. For planning purposes, all properties and buildings within the planning area are considered to be exposed to the severe weather hazard, but structures in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations (hilltops or exposed open areas) may be at risk for the most damage. The frequency and Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-18 September 2023 degree of damage will depend on specific locations and severity of the weather pattern impacting the region. It is improbable to determine the exact number of structures susceptible to a weather event, and therefore emergency managers and public officials should establish a maximum threshold, or worst-case scenario, of susceptible structures. 9.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities are vulnerable to some degree. As many of the severe weather events include multiple hazards, information such as that identifying facilities exposed to flooding or landslides (see Flood and Landslide profiles) are also likely exposed to severe weather. Additionally, facilities on higher ground may also be exposed to wind damage or damage from falling trees. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas without power. Such was the case experienced as a result of the 1996 ice storm, which left much of the area without power for several days. The most recent long-term power outage was caused by the December 2021-January 2022 Severe Winter Storm. As a result of historical events, the local utility providers continue their practice of tree-trimming operations to reduce the potential impact from wind, ice and snow events. In addition to power loss, the area can also experience a loss of phone (cell and land-line), water and sewer systems, which may not function properly during severe weather events. Loss of electricity and phone connection could also result in some residents being unable to call for emergency assistance as needed. Roads may also become impassable due to ice or snow, or from secondary hazards such as landslides. Within the planning region, Tacoma Public Utilities has two hydroelectric dams which produce a significant amount of power to areas well outside of the planning area. Major power lines travel from the various dams through a large swath of Mason County. As such, wind events occurring in Mason County also have the potential to impact power supplies in large metropolitan areas well outside of Mason County. Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures, most of which are associated with secondary hazards such as landslides. Landslides that block roads are caused by heavy prolonged rains, and often times reoccur in areas previously impacted. High winds can cause significant damage to trees and power lines, with obstructing debris blocking roads, incapacitating transportation, isolating populations, and disrupting ingress and egress. Snowstorms at higher elevations can impact the transportation system and the availability of public safety services. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and to the elderly. 9.3.5 Impact on Economy Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to severe weather can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce. Severe windstorms, downed trees, and ice can create serious impacts on power and above-ground communication lines. Freezing rain/snow on power and communication lines can cause them to break, disrupting electricity and communication, further impacting business within the region. Prolonged outages would impact consumer and tax base as a result of lost revenue, (food) spoilage, lack of production, etc. The County does have a fairly large forest harvesting industry as well as large shellfish farms which would be negatively impacted by severe weather events. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts for an entire region. All severe weather events have the potential to also impact tourism, an industry on which much of the planning region is dependent. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-19 September 2023 9.3.6 Impact on Environment The environment is highly exposed to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are exposed to the elements during a severe storm and risk major damage and destruction. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flooding events caused by severe weather or snowmelt can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat, also impacting spawning grounds and fish populations for many years. Within the planning area, there are four fish hatcheries, which, if impacted, could result in decreased numbers of salmon and trout in the area, as the hatcheries release the fish annually. Should this occur, this would impact the area for years to come due to the life-cycle of the returning salmon. Storm surges can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads. Extreme heat can raise temperatures of rivers, impacting oxygen levels in the water, threatening aquatic life. 9.3.7 Impact from Climate Change Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The frequency of severe weather events has increased steadily over the last century. The number of weather-related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in economic losses. Historical data shows that the probability for severe weather events increases in a warmer climate. The last several years, and in particular 2021 and 2022, have seen record temperatures, with meteorologists predicting continued increase. This increase in average surface temperatures can also lead to more intense heat waves that can be exacerbated in urbanized areas by what is known as urban heat island effect. Additionally, the changing hydrograph caused by climate change could have a significant impact on the intensity, duration, and frequency of storm events. All of these impacts could have significant economic consequences. With the increase in average ambient temperatures, since the 1980s, unusually cold temperatures have become less common in the contiguous 48 states. This trend is expected to continue, and the frequency of winter cold spells will likely decrease. As ambient temperatures increase, more water evaporates from land and water sources. The timing, frequency, duration, and type of precipitation events will be affected by these changes. In general, more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. 9.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The County does have land use regulations in place, which includes implementation of the International Building Codes as well as additional land use authority. These codes are equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather incidents by identifying construction standards which address wind speed, roof load capacity, elevation and setback restrictions. While under the Growth Management Act public power utilities are required by law to supply safe, cost effective and equitable service to everyone in the service area requesting service, most lines in the area are above-ground, causing them to be more susceptible to high winds or other severe weather hazards. However, growth management is also a constraint, which could possibly lead to increased outages or even potential shortages, as while most new development expects access to Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Severe Weather Bridgeview Consulting 9-20 September 2023 electricity, they do not want to be in close proximity to sub stations. The political difficulty in sighting these sub-stations makes it difficult for the utility to keep up with regional growth. Land use policies currently in place, when coupled with informative risk data such as that established within this mitigation plan and such other projects like FEMA’s new flood maps, will also address the severe weather hazard. With the land use tools currently in place, the County and its planning partners will be well-equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather. 9.5 ISSUES Important issues associated with a severe weather in the planning area include the following: • Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe weather events such as windstorms. • Redundancy of power supply must be evaluated and increased region-wide in order to more fully understand the vulnerabilities in this area. • The capacity for backup power generation is limited and should be enhanced, especially in areas of potential isolation due to impact on major thoroughfares or evacuation routes. • Isolated population centers exist. • Climate change may increase the frequency and magnitude of winter flooding or storm surges, thus exacerbating severe winter events. • Proximity to coastline enhances flooding potential through storm surges, as well as severe storms in general. 9.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from a severe weather event throughout the area is highly likely. The area experiences some severe storm event annually, albeit not to the level of a disaster declaration, but nonetheless significant. While snow and ice do occur, impact historically has been somewhat limited. The more significant issue would be a severe storm which causes a landslide or flood event (particularly if occurring simultaneous with high-tide), isolating areas or blocking ingress and egress. Wind is also a significant factor, which can cause power outages. While the PUDs maintain excellent records for low incidents of long-term power outages, the possibility does exist. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.0, with overall vulnerability determined to be a high level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 10. WILDFIRE A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. The wildfire season in Washington usually begins in April, picks up in early July, and generally ends in late September; however, wildfires have occurred every month of the year. Drought, snow pack, and local weather conditions can expand the length of the fire season. People start most wildfires; major causes include arson, recreational fires that get out of control, smoker carelessness, debris burning, and children playing with fire. Wildfires started by lightning burn more state-protected acreage than any other cause. Fires during the early and late shoulders of the fire season usually are associated with human-caused fires; fires during the peak period of July, August and early September often are related to thunderstorms and lightning strikes. As of this 2023 update, the County has applied for and is awaiting notification for a grant to develop a countywide CWPP. Should the award be received, the CWPP will take the place of the wildfire chapter of the HMP to reduce redundancy of effort as the CWPP will be much more encompassing. 10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Wildland-Urban Interface Areas The wildland urban-interface (WUI) is the area where development meets wildland areas. This can mean structures built in or near natural forests, or areas next to active timber and rangelands. The federal definition of a WUI community is an area where development densities are at least three residential, business, or public building structures per acre. For less developed areas, the wildland- intermix community has development densities of at least one structure per 40 acres. In 2001, Congress mandated the establishment of a Federal Register which identifies all urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of Federal lands, including Indian trust and restricted lands that are at high-risk from wildfire. The list assimilated information provided from States and Tribes, and is intended to identify those communities considered at risk. Review of the Federal Registry lists in excess of 10 communities within Mason County at high-risk within the vicinity of Federal lands.22 When identifying areas of fire concern, in addition to the Federal Register, the Washington Department of Natural Resources and its federal partners, the U.S. Forest Service, also determine communities at risk based on fire behavior potential, fire protection capability, and risk to social, cultural and community resources. These risk factors include areas with fire history, the type and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions, topography, number and density of 22 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/04/01-52/urban-wildland-interface-communities- within-the-vicinity-of-federal-lands-that-are-at-high-risk-from Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-2 September 2023 structures and their distance from fuels, location of municipal watersheds, and likely loss of housing or business. Based on these criteria, the wildfire risk for Mason County is illustrated in Figure 10-1 based on U.S. Forest Service analysis. Figure 10-1 Wildfire Hazard Potential The wildfire triangle (see Figure 10-2; DeSisto et al., 2009) is a simple graphic used in wildland firefighter training courses to illustrate how the environment affects fire behavior. Each point of the triangle represents one of three main factors that drive wildfire behavior: weather, vegetation type (which firefighters refer to as “fuels”), and topography. The sides represent the interplay between the factors. For example, drier and warmer weather combined with dense fuel loads (e.g., logging slash) and steeper slopes will cause more hazardous fire behavior than light fuels (e.g., short grass fields) on flat ground. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-3 September 2023 Figure 10-2 Wildfire Behavior Triangle The following are key factors affecting wildfire behavior: • Fuel—Lighter fuels such as grasses, leaves and needles quickly expel moisture and burn rapidly, while heavier fuels such as tree branches, logs and trunks take longer to warm and ignite. Snags and hazard trees—those that are diseased, dying, or dead—are larger but less prolific west of the Cascades than east of the Cascades. In 2002, about 1.8 million acres of the state’s 21 million acres of forestland contained trees killed or defoliated by forest insects and diseases. • Weather— Relevant weather conditions include temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount and duration, and the stability of the atmosphere. Of particular importance for wildfire activity are wind and thunderstorms: – Strong, dry winds produce extreme fire conditions. Such winds generally reach peak velocities during the night and early morning hours. East wind events can persist up to 48 hours, with wind speed reaching 60 miles per hour. Being a coastal community, the County experiences significant winds on a fairly regular basis during all times of the year. – The thunderstorm season typically begins in June with wet storms, and turns dry with little or no precipitation reaching the ground as the season progresses into July and August. • Topography—Topography includes slope, elevation and aspect. The topography of a region influences the amount and moisture of fuel; the impact of weather conditions such as temperature and wind; potential barriers to fire spread, such as highways and lakes; and elevation and slope of land forms (fire spreads more easily uphill than downhill). • Time of Day—A fire’s peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. • Forest Practices—In densely forested areas, stands of mixed conifer and hardwood stands that have experienced thinning or clear-cut provide an opportunity for rapidly spreading, high-intensity fires that are sustained until a break in fuel is encountered. Fires can be categorized by their fuel types as follows: • Smoldering—Involves the slow combustion of surface fuels without generating flame, spreading slowly and steadily. Smoldering fires can linger for days or weeks after flaring Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-4 September 2023 has ceased, resulting in potential large quantities of fuel consumed. They heat the duff and mineral layers, affecting the roots, seeds, and plant stems in the ground. These are most common in peat bogs, but are not exclusive to that vegetation. • Crawling—Surface fires that consume low-lying grass, forest litter and debris. • Ladder—Fires that consume material between low-level vegetation or forest floor debris and tree canopies, such as small trees, low branches, vines, and invasive plants. • Crown—Fires that consume low-level surface fuels, transition to ladder fuels, and also consume suspended materials at the canopy level. These fires can spread rapidly through the top of a forest canopy, burning entire trees, and can be extremely dangerous (sometimes referred to as a “Firestorm”). Wildfires may spread by jumping or spotting, as burning materials are carried by wind or firestorm conditions. Burning materials can also jump over roadways, rivers, or even firebreaks and start distant fires. Updraft caused by large wildfire events draws air from surrounding area, and these self- generated winds can also lead to the phenomenon known as a firestorm. 10.1.1 Wildfire Impact Short-term loss caused by a wildfire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Long-term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure. Vulnerability to flooding increases due to the destruction of watersheds. The potential for significant damage to life and property exists in WUI areas, where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas (DeSisto et al., 2009). Forestlands in the planning area are susceptible to disturbances such as logging slash accumulation, forest debris due to weather damage, and periods of drought and high temperature. Forest debris from western red cedar, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce can be especially problematic and at risk to wildfires when slash is accumulated on the forest floor, because such debris resists deterioration. When ignited, these fuels can be explosive and serve as ladder fuels carrying fire from the surface to the canopy. 10.1.2 Identifying Wildfire Risk Risk to communities is generally determined by the number, size and types of wildfires that have historically affected an area; topography; fuel and weather; suppression capability of local and regional resources; where and what types of structures are in the WUI; and what types of pre-fire mitigation activities have been completed. Identifying areas most at risk to fire or predicting the course a fire will take requires precise science. The following data sets are most useful in assessing risk in the area: • Topography (slope and aspect) and Vegetation (fire fuels)—These are two of the most important factors driving wildfire behavior. • Weather—Regional and microclimate variations can strongly influence wildfire behavior. Because of unique geographic features, weather can vary from one neighborhood to another, leading to very different wildfire behavior. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-5 September 2023 • Critical Facilities/Asset Location—A spatial inventory of assets—including homes, roads, fire stations, and natural resources that need protection—in relation to wildfire hazard helps prioritize protection and mitigation efforts. 10.1.3 Secondary Hazards Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding. 10.2 HAZARD PROFILE 10.2.1 Extent and Location Mason County has never received a state or federal disaster declaration for a fire event. Given its rural land use complexity and its proximity to the various large park systems (both federal and state), the entire region is susceptible to impact from wildfire, either as a direct result, or as a secondary result from health or economic impact. 10.2.2 Previous Occurrences Wildfires have been a common occurrence throughout Washington as a whole for thousands of years. Evidence from tree rings or fire-scarred trees indicates cycles of prehistoric fires burned in many locations in both Eastern and Western Washington. Natural fire occurrence is directly related, but not proportional, to lightning incidence levels. It is rare for a summer to pass without at least one period of lightning activity. Lightning incidence is greatest during July and August, though storms capable of igniting fires have occurred from early spring to mid-October. Lightning storms generally track across the park in a southwest to northeast direction. At a national level, lightning starts over 4,000 house fires each year, which can ignite wildland fires through ember ignition and as a result of proximity to wildland areas. Lightning-caused fires cause over 10 times more acreage damage than human-caused fires, requiring great resource allocation. Within Washington, lightning storms are typically followed by light to moderate amounts of precipitation. The rainfall may extinguish the fires, while high fuel moisture inhibits spread. However, prolonged periods of warm, dry weather, especially in combination with east winds, often reveal numerous latent “sleepers.” While most lightning fires are less than a quarter acre in size, occasional large fires during dry periods account for most of the burned acreage. During the time period 2009-2021 (last full year of data available), Mason County as a whole had 850 wildfires occurring in the County (or for which the fire districts assisted with response since 2017), burning a total of ~2,006 acres. When averaged, that equates to ~71 fires per year occurring in the county and surrounding area. That figure does not reflect the recurrence interval for fires within the County, but rather an average calculation as to the number of wildland fires which have historically Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-6 September 2023 occurred within the planning area during the periods reflected. For the period 2017-2021, those numbers also reflect mutual aid response provided to surrounding areas, and is indicative of the increase in fire response calls and the need for mutual aid. Table 10-1 identifies the wildfires occurring within Mason County (or the surrounding areas) which have burned 5 acres or more, as well as the typing of fires. Table 10-2 identifies the total number of fires, regardless of size, and the total acres burned. Additional historic events are identified in Table 10-3. Table 10-1 Mason County Historic Fire Events 5 Acres or Greater Date Name Acres Burned Complexity 7/7/2004 Island Shore Fire 10.4 4 4/25/2006 Razor Fire 5.6 4 7/24/06 Bear Gulch 1,050 2 8/29/2006 South Loop Fire 15 4 9/2/2006 Dewatto 2 Fire 61 2 9/7/2006 Pipeline 2 Fire 5 4 7/12/2007 Shelton Valley Rd. Fire 13 3 7/1/2007 Martin Road Fire 15 4 9/7/2008 East Cushman 10 4 8/2/2009 Eels Hill Road 13.2 4 8/25/2009 Vance Creek 16.3 3 8/15/2010 Richert Road 84.4 3 8/17/2011 Eells Hill 51.20 3 9/11/2012 School 10.4 4 9/12/2012 Carney Lake 5 4 9/26/2012 Powerline 9.3 4 10/4/2012 Powerline 2 229 2 8/10/2014 Mill 5 21 4 8/11/2014 Haven Lake 185 2 9/6/2014 Boyer Road 11 4 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-7 September 2023 Table 10-1 Mason County Historic Fire Events 5 Acres or Greater Date Name Acres Burned Complexity 11/16/2014 WC 131 37 4 6/22/2015 Kamilche 5 4 7/31/2015 Deckerville 107 3 8/27/2015 Sunnyside 58 3 5/27/2016 Lynch Pit 7.1 4 8/13/18 Maple Fire (USFS Fire) 3,300 2 9/21/22 High Steel Fire 26 3 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-8 September 2023 Table 10-2 Total Number Wildfire Events 2009-2021 Year Total Number of Wildland Fires Total Acres Burned 2009 26 42.90 2010 17 91.31 2011 26 55.52 2012 42 262.94 2013 18 4.44 2014 33 261.77 2015 54 183.65 2016 53 25.8 2017* 40 15.51 2018* 76 170.09 2019* 150 207.8 2020* 161 484.24 2021* 154 199.98 Total 850 2,006 *Includes some incidents of fire response from the various Fire Districts within Mason County to areas outside of the county via mutual aid. Table 10-3 Additional Historic Wildfire Incidents 8/1985 One of the largest fires in area history began with an illegal campfire caused the Beaver Fire just north of Staircase. Approximately 400 firefighters and 3 water-dumping helicopters fought the blaze. Smoke from the fire drifted at least 140 miles and over the Cascade Mountains creating a haze as far away as Wenatchee in Eastern Washington. Twenty backcountry hikers were evacuated from the Flapjacks Lakes area and another forty people in the area were taken out by park rangers supported by packhorses. The blaze charred over 1,000 acres and thousands of trees – some 200 to 300 years old – were destroyed. Only three minor injuries were reported among firefighters. The cost to fight the fire was over $500,000. 9/1995 A blaze consumed 25 acres of logged land on Harstine Island and involved almost 150 firefighters and suppression support personnel costing $135,000 to fight. Cause of fire was from a hunter’s cigarette. The following day 36 acres of reforested land burned at Morrow Lake, an area south of Lake Nahwatzel. East winds pushed flames in the opposite direction from homes along the shore. The cost of fighting the fire was $65,000. A total of 200 firefighters were involved in the two battles. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-9 September 2023 Table 10-3 Additional Historic Wildfire Incidents 5/1997 The Lake Limerick fire, pushed by strong southwest winds, burned 594 acres, including 100 acres of wetlands, between Lake Limerick and Emerald Lake. The fire burned Christmas trees, slash, young replanted trees, wetland areas, and second growth Douglas fir trees. The cost of fig hting the fire was approximately $94,000. Firefighters from districts in Mason, Kitsap and Pierce Counties assisted the effort along with 70 Cedar Creek Correctional Center inmates. ~112 people from DNR and Cedar Creek completed the firelines. At the same time a second blaze consumed about 8 acres off Eagle Point Road. 7/2006 A wildfire burned from July to December, blackening a total of 1,085 acres on steep terrain in the Bear Gulch area, threatening the Lake Cushman community. Cost of fighting the fire was approximately $1.8 million. US Forest Service Rd. was closed for about 1 year to prevent injuries from rock and debris slides. This road is the major access to the popular Staircase area and several summer homes located on the west side of Lake Cushman. 10.2.3 Severity Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. Wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds. The destruction of forestlands can have a significant impact on salmon rearing for generations. Extreme fires, when they occur, are characterized by more intense heat and preheating of surrounding fuels, stronger flame runs, potential tree crowning, increased likelihood of significant spot fires, and fire-induced weather (e.g., strong winds, lightning cells). Extreme fire behavior is significantly more difficult to combat and suppress, and can drastically increase the threat to homes and communities. Several factors contribute to the severity of a fire, most of which are utilized when completing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and developing a component based hazard ranking. Due to years of fire suppression, logging, and other human activities, the forests and rangelands have changed. Areas that historically experienced frequent, low-severity wildfires now burn with much greater intensity due to the build-up of understory brush and trees. At times, this equates to fires which are larger and more severe, killing the trees and vegetation at all levels. The combination of steep slopes, canyons, open rangeland, and fuel type have a history and potential for fast moving and fast spreading wildfires. The Mason County planning area is vulnerable to wind-driven fires, whose embers could ignite grasses and weeds, and cause spot fires in more populated areas. Typical summer conditions could prove to be problematic due to a fire moving uphill from a structure fire on a lowe r slope, or from a wildland fire pushing upslope through the trees on a windy day, endangering multiple homes simultaneously in a very short period of time. Residents would have very short notice of an approaching fire. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-10 September 2023 Review of historic wildfires in the County demonstrate there are several different causes, the most common being debris burning and recreational-related fires. 10.2.4 Frequency As previously indicated, none of Washington State’s most significant wildfires have occurred in Mason County, although smaller fires have occurred in the region annually. Fires historically burn on a regular cycle, recycling carbon and nutrients stored in the ecosystem, and strongly affecting species within the ecosystem. The burning cycle in western Wash ington is approximately every 100 to 150 years. Historically, drought patterns are related to large-scale climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation varies on a 5- to 7-year cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30-year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a 65- to 80-year cycle. As these large-scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought conditions in the U.S. shift from region to region. El Niño years bring drier conditions to the Pacific Northwest and more fires. Historic Fire Regime Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire. These patterns, called “fire regimes,” include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability. A fire regime refers to the frequency and intensity of natural fires occurring in various ecosystem types. Alterations of historical fire regimes and vegetation dynamics have occurred in many landscapes in the U.S., including Mason County through the combined influence of land management practices, fire exclusion, insect and disease outbreaks, climate change, and the invasion of non-native plant species. Anthropogenic influences on wildfire occurrence have been witnessed through arson, incidental ignition from industry (e.g., logging, railroad, sporting activities), and other factors. Likewise, wildfire abatement practices have reduced the spread of wildfires after ignition. This has reduced the risk to both the ecosystem and the urban populations living in or near forestlands, such as portions of Mason County. The LANDFIRE Project produces maps of simulated historical fire regimes and vegetation conditions using the LANDSUM landscape succession and disturbance dynamics model. The LANDFIRE Project also produces maps of current vegetation and measurements of current vegetation departure from simulated historical reference conditions. These maps support fire and landscape management planning outlined in the goals of the National Fire Plan, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The simulated historical mean fire return interval data layer quantifies the average number of years between fires under the presumed historical fire regime. This data is derived from simulations using LANDSUM. LANDSUM simulates fire dynamics as a function of vegetation dynamics, topography, and spatial context, in addition to variability introduced by dynamic wind direction and speed, frequency of extremely dry years, and landscape-level fire characteristics. The historical fire regime groups simulated in LANDFIRE categorize mean fire return interval and fire severities into five regimes defined in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook: • Regime 1: 0-35-year frequency, low to mixed severity Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-11 September 2023 • Regime II: 0-35-year frequency, replacement severity • Regime III: 35-200-year frequency, low to mixed severity • Regime IV: 35 -200-year frequency, replacement severity • Regime V: 200+ year frequency, any severity Large wildfires have historically been infrequent in the coastal regions of the Pacific Northwest . While 269 fires have occurred in the planning area since 2009, due to firefighting efforts, many have been contained with limited impact on acreage burned (~928 acres). Fire regimes in Mason County are illustrated in Figure 10-3. It should be noted that not all regime classes fall within the county boundary. The Mean Fire Return Interval (MFRI) layer quantifies the average period between fires under the presumed historical fire regime. MFRI is intended to describe one component of historical fire regime characteristics. As illustrated, the average Mean Fire Return Interval for the majority of Mason County is every 70-100 years. Figure 10-3 LANDFIRE Fire Regimes in Mason County Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-12 September 2023 Figure 10-4 Mean Fire Return Interval 10.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 10.3.1 Overview Structures, above-ground infrastructure, critical facilities and natural environments are all vulnerable to the wildfire hazard. Understanding the relationship between weather, potential fire activity, and geographical features enhances the ability to prepare for the potential of wildfire events. This knowledge, when paired with emergency planning and appropriate mitigation measures , creates a safer environment. Wildfire studies can analyze weather data to assist firefighters in understanding the relationship between weather patterns and potential fire behavior. Fire forecasting examines similarities between historical fire weather and existing weather and climate values. These studies have determined that for areas such as Mason County, any combination of two of the following factors can create more intense and potentially destructive fire behavior, known as extreme fire behavior: • Sustained winds from the east • Relative humidity less than 40 percent Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-13 September 2023 • Temperature greater than 72º Fahrenheit • Periods without precipitation greater than 14 days in duration • 1,000-hour fuel moisture less than 17 percent. If a fire breaks out and spreads rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within a short timeframe. A fire’s peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. In normal situations, fire alerting would commence quickly, helping to reduce the risk. However, in more remote locations of the County, or in areas where cell phone services are sporadic at times, warning time and calls for assistance may be reduced. Warning Time Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm. 10.3.2 Impact on Life Health & Safety Exposure to wildfire in Mason County is dependent upon many factors. The maps used in the analysis show areas of relative importance in determining fire risk, though they do not provide sufficient data for a statistical estimation of exposed population. While there are no recorded fatalities from wildfire in the planning area, a statistical number of the population vulnerable to impact from fire is impossible to determine with any accuracy, due to the high number of variables that impact fire scenarios. The population at risk must also take into consideration tourists given the County’s proximity to the parklands and other Washington high - tourist destinations. With its relatively high tourism rate, especially during summer months, there is an increase in the population vulnerability to fire. Given the increase in tourism during the summer months, when fire danger is at its greatest, increased consideration must be taken into account for fire response. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Mason County has a high population of retirees and individuals over 65, further increasing the potential impact on the fire hazard. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility. Wildfire also threatens the health and safety of those fighting fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after -effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. The county does have a high number of elderly citizens. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-14 September 2023 10.3.3 Impact on Property Property damage from wildfires can be severe and can significantly alter entire communities. The potential exposure of the structures in the County should a fire occur is high, depending on the area, with the unincorporated county and the City of Shelton all having some degree of exposure to wildfire hazards. Some of the area fire districts are also volunteer, increasing the response times. Density and the age of building stock in Mason County are contributing factors in assessing property vulnerability to wildfire. Many of the buildings in the planning area are of significant age, with many being constructed with wood frames and shingle roofs. Most do not have sprinkler systems. Table 10-4 identifies the acres within each fire regime group. Not all regimes fall within the County. Table 10-4 LANDFIRE - Fire Regime Group Acres within Jurisdiction's Boundary Jurisdiction Re g i m e 1 Re g i m e 2 Re g i m e 3 Re g i m e 4 Re g i m e 5 In d e t e r m i n a t e Fi r e R e g i m e Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s Sp a r s e l y Ve g e t a t e d Sn o w / I c e Ba r r e n Wa t e r Mason County, WA 0.0 0.0 253,397.2 0.4 351,419.5 1,517.9 107.8 2,033.8 3,941.4 10,667.3 Unincorporated Mason Co. 0.0 0.0 249,819.7 0.4 347,767.3 1,510.5 107.8 2,033.2 3,904.7 10,425.8 City of Shelton 0.0 0.0 1,655.6 0.0 2,028.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 46.0 Town of Allyn 0.0 0.0 575.2 0.0 525.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.0 54.6 Town of Belfair 0.0 0.0 1,283.0 0.0 980.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 21.0 10.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable during wildfire events. In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Fueling stations could be significantly impacted, as could other structures maintaining hazardous materials. During a wildfire event, hazardous material storage containers could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition the materials could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, having a disastrous effect on the environment. Power lines are also significantly at risk from wildfire because most poles are made of wood and susceptible to burning. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access and can isolate residents and emergency service providers. Wildfire in Mason County could also impact wood-structured bridges, peers, and docks, which are utilized to moor watercraft, launch search and rescue vessels, dam safety inspections, shellfish harvesting, fishing vessels, or other private boats associated with tourism. Table 10-5 identifies critical facilities exposed to the wildfire hazard. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-15 September 2023 10.3.5 Impact on Economy Wildfire impact on the economy can be far reaching, ranging from damage to transportation routes to non-use of park facilities and campsites impacting tourism, to loss of structures influencing tax base from lost revenue. Fire within the County could also impact timber harvesting, as well as other agricultural businesses. Taylor Shellfish, a major employer within the county distributing shellfish nationwide, could also be impacted by both primary and secondary impacts to wildfire. Disruption of major thoroughfares in the area could impact distribution of goods. Secondary hazards associated with wildfire, such as environmental impact, or increased landslides and flooding potential, would further impact the economy. 10.3.6 Impact on Environment Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental impacts: • Damaged Fisheries—Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality. • Soil Erosion—The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. Table 10-5 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Exposed to Fire Regime Areas Regime 1 Regime 3 Regime 4* Regime 5 Medical and Health Services 0 1 0 0 Government Function 0 2 0 17 Protective Function 0 14 0 25 Hazmat 0 4 0 0 Other Critical Function 0 0 0 3 Water 0 9 0 7 Wastewater 0 14 0 12 Power 0 13 0 8 Communications 0 1 0 2 Total 0 58 0 74 *There is no Regime 2 in the County. There are no structures located in Regime 4. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-16 September 2023 • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species. • Soil Sterilization—Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. 10.3.7 Impacts from Climate Change Fire in western ecosystems is determined by climate variability, local topography, and human intervention. Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods. Historically, drought patterns in the West are related to large-scale climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the Pacific varies on a 5- to 7-year cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30-year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a 65- to 80-year cycle. As these large-scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought conditions in the U.S. shift from region to region. El Niño years bring drier conditions to the Pacific Northwest and more fires. Climate scenarios project summer temperature increases between 2ºC and 5°C and precipitation decreases of up to 15 percent. Such conditions would exacerbate summer drought and further promote high-elevation wildfires, releasing stores of carbon and further contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Forest response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide—the so-called “fertilization effect”—could also contribute to more tree growth and, thus, more fuel for fires, but the effects of carbon dioxide on mature forests are still largely unknown. High carbon dioxide levels should enhance tree recovery after fire and young forest regrowth, as long as sufficient nutrients and soil moisture are available, although the latter is in question for many parts of the western United States because of climate change. 10.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The County is optimistic that increased population growth will continue to occur throughout the region. As areas of the County become more urbanized, the potential exists that the fire risk may increase as urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime, and the growth will expand the urbanized areas into undeveloped wildland areas. However, the County feels that this expansion of the wildland-urban interface can be managed with strong land use and building codes. A growing body of research suggests that “the only effective home protection treatment is treatment in, on, and around the house (see Figure 10-5); homeowners must be responsible for protecting that property” (Nowicki 2001, p. 1:3). U.S. Forest Service research scientist, Jack Cohen has stated that “home ignitions are not likely unless flames and firebrand ignitions occur within 40 meters [131 feet] of the structure; the WUI fire loss problem primarily depends on the home and its immediate site.” Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-17 September 2023 Figure 10-5 Measures to Protect Homes from Wildfire 10.5 ISSUES The major issues for wildfire in Mason County are the following: • Public education and outreach to people living in or near the fire hazard zones should include information about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space, and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones. • Wildfires could cause landslides as a secondary natural hazard. • Climate change will affect the wildfire hazard. • Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed. • Vegetation management activities should include enhancement through expansion of target areas as well as additional resources. • Building code standards need to be enhanced, including items such as residential sprinkler requirements and prohibitive combustible roof standards. • Increased fire department water supply is needed in high-risk wildfire areas. • Obtain and maintain certifications and qualifications for fire department personnel. Ensure that firefighters are trained in basic wildfire behavior, basic fire weather, and that company officers and chief level officers are trained in the wildland command and strike team leader level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Wildfire Bridgeview Consulting 10-18 September 2023 A worst-case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season. While local fire districts would be extremely useful in the urban interface areas, they have limited wildfire capabilities or experience, and they would have a difficult time responding to the ignition zones. Even though the existence and spread of the fire is known, it may not be possible to respond to it adequately, so an initially manageable fire can become out of control before resources are dispatched. To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides and releasing tons of sediment into rivers, permanently changing floodplains and damaging sensitive habitat and riparian areas. Such a fire followed by rain could release millions of cubic yards of sediment into streams for years, creating new floodplains and changing existing ones. With the forests removed from the watershed, stream flows could easily double. Flood that could be expected every 50 years may occur every couple of years. With the streambeds unable to carry the increased discharge because of increased sediment, the floodplains and the flood elevations would increase. 10.6 RESULTS Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact from Wildfire throughout the area is likely, but the impact is more limited with respect to geographic extent. The area experiences some level of wildfire almost annually, but the acreage burned has, thankfully, been more limited in nature due in large part to response activities. Construction into the wildfire hazard areas undoubtedly will continue to expand, thereby increasing the risk of fires. Implementation of mitigation strategies which help reduce wildfire risk, such as landscaping regulations and mandatory sprinkler systems, could potentially help reduce the number of structures at risk. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 2.60, with overall vulnerability determined to be a medium level. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 11. HAZARD RANKING 11.1 CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX In ranking the hazards, the Planning Team completed a Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) worksheet for each hazard identified below. The index examines five criteria for each hazard as discussed in Chapter 4 (probability, magnitude/severity, extent/location, warning time, and duration), defines a risk index for each according to four levels, then applies a weighting factor. The result is a score that has been used to rank the hazards at the County level. All planning partners also completed their own hazard rankings, using the same process. Table 11-1 presents the results of the CPRI scoring for hazards Countywide. Table 11-2 is a summary of the hazard ranking for the jurisdiction planning partners. Figures 11-1 through Figure 11-6 are the CPRI worksheets for each planning partner, illustrating the vulnerabilities to each hazard of concern, as well as their hazard ranking as established in the methodology identified in Chapter 4. Table 11-1 Countywide Calculated Priority Risk Index Ranking Scores Hazard Probability Magnitude and/or Severity Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Calculated Priority Risk Index Score Climate Change 3 2 2 1 4 2.4 Drought 3 2 3 1 4 2.6 Earthquake 4 3 4 4 1 3.6 Flood 4 3 3 2 2 3.25 Landslide 4 2 2 4 1 2.95 Severe Weather 4 3 3 2 2 3.25 Wildfire 3 2 2 4 2 2.6 The CPRI scoring method has a range from 0 to 4. “0” being the least hazardous and “4” being the highest. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-2 September 2023 Table 11-2 Hazard Ranking Summary County City of Shelton PUD 1 PUD 3 FD 16 CMFE FD 4 Hazard Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Climate Change 5 2.4 7 1.15 4 2.45 4 2.45 7 1.15 6 3.1 7 1.15 Drought 4 2.6 6 2.2 6 2.15 5 2.15 6 2.2 7 2.05 6 2.2 Earthquake 1 3.6 3 3.05 1 3.4 1 3.4 4 3.6 3 3.55 1 3.6 Flood 2 3.25 4 2.9 3 2.8 3 2.8 2 3.7 4 2.4 4 2.9 Landslide 3 2.95 5 2.45 5 2.15 5 2.15 5 2.45 5 2.9 5 2.45 Severe Weather 2 3.25 1 3.5 2 3.0 2 3 1 3.5 2 2.35 2 3.5 Wildfire 4 2.6 2 3.1 6 2.15 5 2.15 3 3.1 1 3.1 3 3.1 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-3 September 2023 11.1.1 Calculated Priority Rate Index Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-4 September 2023 Figure 11-1 Fire District #4 Figure 11-2 Fire District #16 Figure 11-3 Central Mason Fire & EMS Figure 11-4 City of Shelton Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligible (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastrophic (4) Negligible (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensive (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 1 1 1 1 4 1.15 Drought 2 2 3 1 4 2.20 Earthquake 4 3 4 4 1 3.60 Flood*3 3 3 2 3 2.90 Landslides 2 3 2 4 2 2.45 Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 3 3.50 Wildfire 3 3 3 4 3 3.10 Other Hazards of Concern 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 Warning Time Duration CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligible (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastrophic (4) Negligible (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensive (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 1 1 1 1 4 1.15 Drought 2 2 3 1 4 2.20 Earthquake 4 3 4 4 1 3.60 Flood*4 4 4 2 3 3.75 Landslides 2 3 2 4 2 2.45 Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 3 3.50 Wildfire 3 3 3 4 3 3.10 Other Hazards of Concern 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastro phic (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensiv e (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 4 2 3 2 4 3.10 Drought 2 2 2 2 3 2.05 Earthquake 4 3 3 4 4 3.55 Flood*2 2 3 3 4 2.40 Landslides 3 3 2 4 3 2.90 Severe Weather 3 2 2 1 3 2.35 Wildfire 3 3 3 4 3 3.10 Other Hazards of Concern 2 2 2 2 3 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastro phic (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensiv e (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 1 1 1 1 4 1.15 Drought 2 2 3 1 4 2.20 Earthquake 2 4 4 4 1 3.05 Flood*3 3 3 2 3 2.90 Landslides 2 3 2 4 2 2.45 Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 3 3.50 Wildfire 3 3 3 4 3 3.10 Other Hazards of Concern 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-5 September 2023 Figure 11-5 PUD 1 Figure 11-6 PUD 3 11.2 SOCIAL VULNERABILITY Once the hazard ranking was completed, the Planning Team then conducted a Social Vulnerability Assessment for those priority hazards identified in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2. Several different assessments were completed with respect to social vulnerability, including data contained within the Community Profile section (Chapter 3), within each hazard profile, within the various tables in this section, and a qualitative assignment based on the CPRI analysis. When determining risk, it is significant to remember that risk is measured by not only the hazard, but also on how resilient a population is, or will be during the hazard. Resilience is influenced by many factors, including: age or income; available social networks, and neighborhood characteristics, all of which can be used to measure the social vulnerability of the area and its citizens. Factors that contribute to the level of vulnerability of a population are associated with four areas of impact, which, in part, are utilized within this assessment with a few modifications to the original study, as indicated: • Socioeconomic status: – Below Poverty Level – Employment Status – Income level – No High School Diploma • Household composition: – Age 65 or older Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastro phic (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensiv e (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 2 3 3 1 4 2.45 Drought 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 Earthquake 3 4 3 4 4 3.40 Flood*4 2 2 1 4 2.80 Landslides 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 Severe Weather 4 2 3 1 4 3.00 Wildfire 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 Other Hazards of Concern 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Unlikely / Low (1) Possible / Medium (2) Likely / High (3) Highly Likely / Very High (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Critical (3) Catastro phic (4) Negligibl e (1) Limited (2) Significa nt (3) Extensiv e (4) < 6 hours (4) 6 - 12 hours (3) 12 - 24 hours (2) > 24 hours (1) < 6 hours (1) < 24 hours (2) < 1 week (3) > 1 week (4) Climate Change 2 3 3 1 4 2.45 Drought 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 Earthquake 3 4 3 4 4 3.40 Flood*4 2 2 1 4 2.80 Landslides 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 Severe Weather 4 2 3 1 4 3.00 Wildfire 2 2 2 3 3 2.15 0.00 0.00 *Includes Dams 0.00 CPRI ScoreHazard Probability Magnitude/Severity Geographic Extent and Location Warning Time Duration Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-6 September 2023 – Age 5 or younger – Disability – Single Parent Households • Minority Status and Language: – Minority – race or ethnicity – Language barrier (Speak English “Less than Well”) • Housing/transportation: – Multi-Unit Structures, including Group Quarters – Mobile Homes – Crowding – No Vehicle The purpose of the classifications is to better understand whose needs are not being addressed through traditional service providers or who cannot safely access and use the standard resources offered for disaster preparedness, relief and recovery. Special focus on these groups during emergency situations is crucial because not only are they more likely to be impacted by an event, but they are many times also less likely to recover. As this planning process expands over the next five years, the County intends to expand this section to include data for all vulnerable classifications. 11.2.1 Classifications Socioeconomic status considers things such as income, poverty, employment status, and education level. Those who are economically disadvantaged will be affected by an event more significantly. The monetary value of their possessions may be less, but they represent a larger proportion of total household assets. These groups are less likely to have renters or homeowner’s insurance, so their possession will be costlier to replace, and individuals are less likely to evacuate in order to ensure the protection of their belongings. In the event of injury or death, those who are unemployed will not have the benefits or the income to assist with costs for recovery. In addition, in most cases, the poor lack the assets and the resources to prepare for a disaster in advance, and once impacted, to recover. Household composition and disability grouping is comprised of age (under the age of 5 and above 65), single parent homes, and any disability. These groups are more likely to need financial support, transportation, medical care, or assistance with daily activities during disasters. The elderly and the younger children often lack resources, knowledge, or life experiences to effectively address the situation and cannot protect themselves. Elderly living alone, and people with physical, sensory, or cognitive challenges are vulnerable during an incident. These groups often need a higher level of assistance than others, and may have caretakers who are less able to assist during a crisis if those caretakers have families of their own. This places a heavier burden on medical and first responders. Minority status and language includes race, ethnicity, and proficiency of the English language. The social and economic marginalization of certain racial and ethnic groups have made these populations more likely to be vulnerable at all stages, and are automatically associated with a higher vulnerability rate. Many citizens are not fluent in English, which makes providing them with real time information difficult. Because Spanish is the most prominent second language, there are often translators Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-7 September 2023 available, and many times emergency notifications are provided in Spanish; however, those who speak other languages are at greater risk if notifications are not provided in the appropriate languages. These groups often rely on family, friends, neighbors and social media for information. Housing and transportation considers the structure of the home (e.g., building codes, age of structure), crowding, and access to vehicles or public transportation. The quality of the housing is crucial when calculating vulnerability. Economically disadvantaged often live in poorly constructed houses or mobile homes which may not be designed to withstand storms events, ice/snow loads, wind, earthquakes, or flooding. Mobile homes are often located in places without easy access to transportation, are in cluster communities, and many times not secured to a foundation, all of which increase vulnerability. Multi-unit housing in densely populated areas are difficult to evacuate due to limited amounts of space and crowding. Urban areas often have a lower automobile ownership rate, especially in the lower income areas, which make evacuations more challenging. Despite the lower proportion of people with vehicles, urban areas often have to deal with congestion on highways and major roads because of crowding. Group quarters are another housing situation that cause concern during evacuations, especially nursing homes and long-term care facilities because many institutions are unprepared to quickly remove staff and residents, and as with private group/independent living homes, the data that such facilities exist is not publicly known and/or identified. All of these factors contribute to a community’s social vulnerability which impacts all phases of emergency management, and should be taken into consideration in various planning efforts. Table 11-3 identifies those factors and classifications which contribute to a community’s social vulnerability identified by the percent of special population within the County utilizing U.S. Census data, augmented with County-specific data where available. Also occurring during this update period, the County conducted its annual Point in Time homeless census count on January 27, 2023. Those numbers showed that the current count of 477 respondents was nearly double 2022’s numbers, which recorded 254 individuals. In an effort to address homelessness, Mason County Community Services administers funding dollars to impacted citizens for housing and homelessness. Those funds are received annually from various sources, including the local document recording fees, Consolidated Homeless Grant, and Housing and Essential Needs Grant. Review of Washington State Department of Health’s website also identifies social vulnerability throughout Mason County based on the same indices utilized by the planning team, which was originally developed by the CDC. The intent of the data is to provide information to emergency management groups for use during emergency situations, including response planning of emergencies. The data, when applied, allows a more accurate response based on the demographics and vulnerabilities of a specific community. Figure 11-7 identifies the various ranking for Mason County as identified by DOH. Reviewers wishing more information can access the data at: Information by Location | Washington Tracking Network (WTN) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-8 September 2023 Table 11-3 Vulnerable Populations Population Group Percent of Total Population Households Children 5 and Under 5 Populations 65 and Older 23.7 Population In Poverty 13 Language Other Than English* 8.1 With a disability under age 65 13.7 Households No Vehicles 5 Households No Telephone 2 Percent Housing Units Mobile Homes 18 *The County has interpretation services in over 250 languages, which are available to assist with translation of emergency notifications and information. Sources: Based on 2020 US Census and Washington State Office of Financial Management Data. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-9 September 2023 Figure 11-7 Washington State Department of Health Social Vulneability Index 11.2.2 Results and Discussion Based on the classifications identified, the Planning Team performed its assessment to help identify issues and concerns, conducting a qualitative assessment combining the value of the CPRI, and summarizing the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and subjective damage and casualty potential. Those items were categorized into the following levels: • Extremely Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent. • Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-10 September 2023 • Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. • High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. • Extremely High—Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Table 11-4 identifies the results of this assessment. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-11 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Climate Change Climate change is measured in terms of impact on other hazards. Impact varies, but can include physical drought conditions, water shortage, increased flood incidents, or increased wildfire danger. X X X X X X X Medium Climate change itself customarily does not impact structures; however, the entire population and natural resources of the area will be impacted by climate change. Drought Drought is typically measured in terms of water availability in a geographic area, and is not a sudden-onset hazard, allowing some preparation. Socioeconomic droughts occur when physical water shortage begins to affect people, individually and collectively. Social impacts mainly involve public safety, health, reduced quality of life, and inequities in the distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Many impacts identified as economic and/or environmental also have a social component. During warm seasons, water suppliers are often faced with more demand for water than they are able to distribute. This may lead to rationing and curtailment, with business that rely heavily on water usage suffering financially. Most socioeconomic definitions of drought associate it with supply, demand, and economic goods. X X X X X X X Medium Drought customarily does not impact structures, but would adversely impact people, resources, and aqua- and agri-cultural businesses (among others) within the area. Therefore, all populations would be susceptible, although the degree would be determined by the severity of the drought in place, the availability of water, increased fire danger and response times, and the economic impact from water- dependent industries. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-12 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Earthquake Older structures (pre ~1970) have high probability of collapse due to building code standards; Non-English speakers may have issues gaining hazard information for preparedness. Low-income individuals may not be able to stockpile supplies or medications. Elderly populations are vulnerable due to health issues, the lack of physical strength to extricate themselves, etc. Businesses many times do not carry insurance which will help them recover from losses. X X X X X X X High Many structures in the area were built pre-1970, when lower codes were in place, making the structures more vulnerable to collapse, increasing the potential for injury. Also of concern with earthquake are landslides and slope stability. Stability in the area could be significantly undermined. The majority of the entire area is susceptible to the impacts from an earthquake to some degree. Older structures would be more susceptible to collapse during shaking, increasing the number and degree of injuries. Elderly and young would be susceptible because of the decreased ability to survive injury, and the decreased ability to physically extract themselves from debris if buried beneath collapsed structures. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-13 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Landslide The probability for impact from Landslide is more limited with respect to geographic extent. The area experiences some level of landslides almost annually. The coastal bluff areas, and areas within the unincorporated areas of the County have identifiable landslide risk. While there are areas where no landslide risk, landslides can occur on fairly low slopes, and areas with no slopes can be impacted by slides at a distance. Construction in critical areas, which includes geologically sensitive areas such as landslide areas, is regulated; however, beyond the structural impact, secondary impact to infrastructure causing isolation or commodity shortages also has the potential to impact the region. X X X X X X High A significant portion of the planning area has some level of susceptibility to landslides, especially along the major roadways in the County. As such, evacuation in the area could be impacted by a landslide event. With the increased risk factor during the rainy season, a landslide could occur anywhere in the county where soils can become saturated. This could impact the ability of citizens to leave areas where flooding occurs, or evacuate after a major earthquake if a landslide has blocked major arterials. This could also impact responders accessing areas. Vulnerable populations would be less likely to be able to evacuate, increasing their risk. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-14 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Flood Year of construction will influence the building code and the height to which the structures were built when compared to the Base Flood Elevation. In most instances, weather patterns which cause flooding are identified in advance, allowing pre-planning for evacuation, thereby potentially reducing the individuals at risk. Individuals without homeowner’s insurance which covers flooding may suffer extreme financial risk. Businesses impacted many times do not carry insurance which will help them recover from losses. In many instances, those businesses do not return to the area because they cannot overcome the financial loss. X X X X X X X High Flooding in the area has been significant, especially within the Skokomish basin and the City of Shelton. Flooding in the area has also impacted transportation, causing roadways to be blocked, and causing landslides which also block major arterials. This has caused issues with evacuation in certain areas. All areas within the floodplain would be vulnerable. Given the higher- than-average population of elderly and young, the level of vulnerability is higher than when compared to other areas. The County also has increased populations from visitors who frequent tourism destinations in the area such as the Olympic National Forest, and the large campgrounds in the area where the dams are situated. For planning purposes, a significant increase in seasonal population in the area should be considered to include annual volumes of tourists and residents with vacation homes. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-15 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Severe Weather – inclusive of heat, cold, wind, snow, ice, hail, Thunder- storm, lightening Severe weather occurs regularly throughout the planning area. In most instances, weather patterns are forecasted in advance, allowing for preparation. Individuals with lower income may not have the ability to stock supplies, nor afford the cost of increased energy costs for both heating or cooling, depending on the weather event. In snow or ice conditions, secondary impacts from driving or shoveling snow increases the risk of impact. Elderly and young children are especially susceptible to ice and heat conditions. Lighting strikes also occur throughout the planning area, although in a limited capacity. In densely wooded areas, such as the Olympic National Forest, fires could go un-noticed for a period of time, allowing the fire to gain strength and severity, especially during drought situations. Lightning risk also increases due to the large waterbodies in the area, and the time it takes for boaters to get to safety. The area also has a number of golf courses, which are open and provide little cover from lightning strikes. X X X X X X X High The entire region is susceptible to severe weather incidents, including impact to people, property, and the environment. Incidents of some nature and degree occur annually. Depending on the type of event, roadways may be impassible. Significant power outages do not occur often, and do not customarily last for a long period of time. However, when coupled with cold conditions, the impact to vulnerable populations increases. With extreme heat events, physical manifestation on the young and elderly rise. In addition, the increased fire danger impacts the entire area. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Hazard Ranking Bridgeview Consulting 11-16 September 2023 Table 11-4 Vulnerability Overview Population Groups Impacted (By Group Type) Hazard Synopsis of Potential Impact Bu s i n e s s Ch i l d r e n Di s a b l e d El d e r s Fa m i l i e s Lo w I n c o m e La n g u a g e Level of Impact High, Medium, Low Summarized Extent and Location Wildfire Impact from wildfires has increased over time due to effective suppression tactics. This has now caused fires to burn with greater intensity, with the traditional fire regimes being modified. Embers from wildfires can be carried significant distances (miles). With climate change impacting drought conditions, the potential for wildfire increases as moisture content is depleted. Lightning strikes and people are the major causes of wildfires, which can spread very quickly, leaving little to no time to evacuate. Individuals with access and functional needs, the young and elderly are at greater risk due to their potential dependence on others to assist with evacuation. Individuals, including the young and elderly, with health concerns are impacted significantly by smoke. Increased rates of death due to smoke is not uncommon. X X X X X X X Medium Wildfire danger can impact the entire planning area; however, there has been limited impact to date. The various Fire Regimes do identify areas of higher levels of risk, although wildfires can occur in any area with vegetation. Not all Fire Regimes exist in the area. Due to the wind patterns in the area, including the shift of winds during afternoon hours, embers have the potential to travel great distances (miles) and ignite fires in areas which are densely wooded. In some instances, these fires can burn for periods of time, going un-noticed until ignition consumes a large area, making containment difficult. Elderly, young and individuals with breathing/health issues are more vulnerable due to smoke and particulates. Language may also be a barrier for non-English speaking populations due to the inability to understand evacuation orders, which can be very short-notice. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 12. MITIGATION STRATEGY The development of a mitigation strategy allows the community to create a vision for preventing future disasters. This is accomplished by establishing a common set of mitigation goals and objectives, a common method to prioritize actions, and evaluation of the success of such actions. Specific mitigation goals, objectives and projects were developed for Mason County and its planning partners by the Planning Team in their attempt to establish an overall mitigation strategy by which the jurisdictions would enhance resiliency of the planning area. 12.1 HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES During the December 2022 Kick-Off Meeting, the Planning Team reviewed the 2018 existing goals. For the 2023 update, the planning team used the existing goals as written, with no modifications. The planning team felt that the goals as written support the countywide effort of enhanced capabilities which support resilience through protection of life, property, the economy and the environment. The goals as written accurately describe the overall direction that Mason County and its planning partners can take to work toward mitigating risk from natural hazards and avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the hazards of concern. 12.1.1 Goals Goals for the 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan are as follows: 1. Reduce or prevent hazard-related injuries or loss of life, as well as reducing impact to property, the environment, and the economy. 2. Encourage the development and implementation of multi-objective opportunities and long-term, cost-effective, and environmentally sound mitigation projects and initiatives. 3. Enhance community capabilities and resilience through proactive measures, increased public awareness, and readiness. 4. Promote disaster-resistant and resilient communities by leveraging public and private partnering opportunities. 12.1.2 Objectives During the Kick-Off Meeting, the planning team confirmed the objectives for the 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan as presented in Table 12-1. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-2 September 2023 Table 12-1 Objectives 2023 Objective Number Objective Statement Applicable Goals O-1 Acquire (purchase), retrofit, or relocate structures in high hazard areas. 1, 2, 3, 4, O-2 Encourage open space uses in hazardous areas or ensure that if building occurs in these high-risk areas that it is done in such a way as to minimize risk. 1, 2, 3, 4 O-3 Use best available data, science, and technologies to improve understanding of location and potential impacts of hazards, and to promote disaster resilient communities that minimize risk. 1, 2, 3, 4, O-4 Consider the impacts of natural hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land use. 1, 2, 3, 4 O-5 Increase resilience and the continuity of operations of identified critical facilities throughout the County. 1, 2, 3, 4 O-6 Continue established partnerships among the County Government and business leaders within surrounding area to improve and implement methods to protect life, property, and the environment, while enhancing government and business continuity within the planning area. 1, 2, 3, 4 O-7 Enhance community capabilities to prepare for, protect from, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the impact of hazards. 3 O-8 Encourage the development and implementation of long-term, cost-effective and environmentally sound mitigation projects by encouraging use of incentives. 1, 2, 3 O-9 Develop or improve emergency warning response and communication systems and evacuation procedures. 1, 3 O-10 Provide/improve fire protection activities through various means, including: public education and outreach activities, defensible space, fire-resistant landscaping, spatial distribution of development, fuel treatment activities, and enhanced water supply systems where appropriate and feasible. 1, 2, 3, 4 O-11 Encourage hazard mitigation measures that result in the least adverse effect on the natural environment and that use natural processes, while preserving and maintaining the environmental elements of the planning area. 2, 3 12.2 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTION ITEMS After the goals and objectives were established, the planning team developed specific mitigation initiatives / action items to further increase resilience. FEMA defines mitigation initiatives as sustained measures, which if enacted, will reduce or eliminate the long-term risk from hazards. Whether by preparing citizens for disasters, training responders, or structural infrastructure protection, the actions ultimately should help protect our citizens, and enhance social and economic recovery during such times when disasters do strike. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-3 September 2023 FEMA identifies four categories of actions that constitute natural hazard mitigation, which become the core competencies for developing an effective mitigation program. Those categories, divided further into hard or soft mitigation initiatives, include: 1) Local planning and regulations (soft mitigation); 2) Education and awareness programs (soft mitigation); 3) Structural or infrastructure projects (hard mitigation); and 4) Natural systems protection (hard mitigation). These competencies allow organizations to assess mitigation efforts, and where lacking, develop processes, programs, rules, regulations, and standards on which to enhance resilience when considering the hazards of concern, and their potential impact on a community. In an effort to help develop sound mitigation initiatives for this update, FEMA’s 2013 catalog of Mitigation Ideas was presented to the planning team. This document includes a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use in the planning area, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6.c.3.ii), and can be applied to both existing structures and new construction. The catalog provides a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the planning partners’ goals and objectives, and are within the capabilities of the partners to implement. It presents alternatives that are categorized in two ways: • By what the alternative would do: – Manipulate a hazard – Reduce exposure to a hazard – Reduce vulnerability to a hazard – Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for a hazard • By who would have responsibility for implementation: – Individuals – Businesses – Government. Hazard mitigation initiatives recommended in this plan were selected from among the alternatives presented in the catalogs, as well as projects identified by the planning partners and interested stakeholders specific to their jurisdiction. Some were carried over from the previous plan. Some may not be feasible based on the selection criteria identified for this plan, but are included nonetheless as the planning team felt they are viable actions to be taken to reduce hazard influence in some manner. 12.3 MITIGATION INITIATIVES AND 2023 ACTION PLAN STATUS For the 2023 update, particular attention was given to new and existing buildings and infrastructure, and developing appropriate mitigation strategies for these facilities . The planning team determined that some initiatives from FEMA’s Mitigation Catalog could be implemented to provide hazard mitigation benefits countywide. The 2018 plan contained two separate tables were developed; one for countywide initiatives (Table 12-2) and one for county-specific initiatives (Table 12-3). Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-4 September 2023 For this 2023 update, Tables 12-2 and Table 12-3 remain current with a column added to provide the 2023 status of the 2018 effort, identifying the strategy as Completed, Carried Forward (still a relevant project), or Removed (no longer relevant, or completed and therefore removed). A brief synopsis is also provided beneath the identified strategy. New strategies identified during the 2023 update process are incorporated and designated as NEW. Of the 24 identified countywide initiatives from the 2018 plan, none were removed, but some were modified slightly based on work performed on the strategy, or new information/guidance becoming available. All of the county-specific strategies carried forward to the 2023 update, and remain valid projects. 12.4 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES In addition to identifying potential funding sources available for each project, the Planning Team also developed strategies/action items that are categorized and assessed in several ways: • By what the alternative would impact – new or existing structures, to include efforts which: – Manipulate/mitigate a hazard; – Reduce exposure to a hazard; – Reduce vulnerability to a hazard; • By who would have responsibility for implementation: – Individuals; – Businesses; – Government (Tribal, County, Local, State and/or Federal); • By the timeline associated with completion of the project, based on the following parameters: – Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years; – Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years; – Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs; • By who benefits from the initiative, as follows: – A specific structure or facility; – A local community; – County-level efforts; – Regional level benefits. • By Community Lifelines potentially mitigated. (For this 2023 update, this analysis was included only at the County level, as all planning partners felt their mitigation action items targeted all lifelines). – Safety and Security Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-5 September 2023 – Food, Water, Shelter – Health and Medical – Energy (Power & Fuel) – Communications – Transportation – Hazardous Materials 12.5 CRS ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Each Planning Partner further reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify them based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. This analysis incorporated, among others, the Community Rating System scale, identifying each mitigation action item by type. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows. • Prevention – Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. This includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Public Information and Education – Public information campaigns or activities which inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them – a public education or awareness campaign, including efforts such as: real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education, all of which bring awareness of the hazards of concern. • Structural Projects —Efforts taken to secure against acts of terrorism, manmade, or natural disasters. Types of projects include levees, reservoirs, channel improvements, or barricades which stop vehicles from approaching structures to protect. • Property Protection – Actions taken that protect the properties. Types of efforts include: structural retrofit, property acquisition, elevation, relocation, insurance, storm shutters, shatter-resistant glass, sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, etc. Protection can be at the individual homeowner level, or a service provided by police, fire, emergency management, or other public safety entities. • Emergency Services / Response —Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities (e.g., sandbagging). • Natural Resource Protection – Wetlands and floodplain protection, natural and beneficial uses of the floodplain, and best management practices. These include actions that preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Recovery —Actions that involve the construction or re-construction of structures in such a way as to reduce the impact of a hazard, or that assist in rebuilding or re-establishing a community after a disaster incident. It also includes advance planning to address Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-6 September 2023 recovery efforts which will take place after a disaster. Efforts are focused on re- establishing the planning region in such a way as enhance resiliency and reduce impacts to future incidents. Recovery differs from response, which occurs during, or immediately after an incident. Recovery views long-range, sustainable efforts. Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-1 Continue data gathering for facility information to continue to improve the risk assessment and identification of infrastructure countywide. New/ Existing All 3, 6, 10, DEM All planning partners Low HLS/ EMPG, BRIC, HMGP, HUD, General Funds Ongoing Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection Yes (All) Regional C 2023 Status: This effort was completed with this HMP update, and will be maintained by each planning partner moving forward. CW-2 Work with County and state agencies to establish a protocol and advance permitting for transporting of hazardous materials for identification during an incident. New/ Existing Hazardous Materials 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 PH, Fire, DEM, PW, WDOT, WDOE Low General Funds, HLS (EMPG), CDC grants Long- Term Yes Prevention, Public Info/ Education, Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services/ Response Yes (HazMat) Regional CF 2023 Status: The County relies on the state to address permitting issues with respect to hazardous materials transportation. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-7 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-3 Develop points of distribution in areas of potential isolation that may occur during a landslide or earthquake event, as well as for use during incidents like the COVID Pandemic for equipment, vaccinations, etc. New All 3, 6, 7, 9 PH, DEM, PW Low EMPG, HUD Short- Term No Public Info/ Education, Emergency Services / Response, Recovery Yes (Health) Regional CF 2023 Status: PODs were utilized for COVID for immunizations and distribution of masks/gloves, etc. The County will continue to work on this initiative. CW-4 Work with Public Health and Human Services to develop an information bank identifying individuals with access and functional needs. This will assist the County in determining shelter locations requiring specific resources to meet the needs of those individuals. NOTE: This is not an attempt to gather medical -related data, but rather to determine access and functional needs of citizens – e.g., citizens in wheel chairs need more space and shower/restroom facilities; hearing impaired need to have an area which allows them to be near to their signer, the use of oxygen tanks increases space requirements, etc. New All 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 PH, DEM, HS Low Health and Human Service Grants, HUD, HMGP Long- Term Yes Public Info/ Education, Emergency Services / Response, Recovery Yes (Health) Com- munity Level CF 2023 Status: County DEM, PH, and HS work with local agencies, private non-profits, and residents to provide information to its residents concerning the special needs of populations entering shelters. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-8 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-5 Coordinating with Assessor’s Office, Permitting and other County offices, update Assessor’s parcel data to include more building-specific information which may be utilized within the GIS and Hazus programs for enhanced risk assessments to provide a detailed loss estimation. New and Existing All 3, 5, 6 Assessor ’s Office; GIS; PW, DEM; CD Mediu m General Fund, HMGP Short- Term Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection, Recovery Yes (All Sectors) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The Assessor’s office and other county departments continue to work to coordinate assessor’s data with that of permitting and GIS to enhance the use of the data in HMP and other planning efforts. CW-6 Coordinate among all jurisdictions to seek out and apply for grants for site hardening of facilities. New/ Existing EQ, F, LS, SW 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 DEM Mediu m Earthquak e and Tsunami Program, HMGP, BRIC, HUD, DOT, EPA Long- Term Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection Yes (All sectors related to Critical Lifelines) Facility Specific CF 2023 Status: This continues to be an on-going effort and will be carried forward in the 2023 update. CW-7 Maintain and regularly update fire hydrant layer countywide. New/ Existing WF 3, 5, 7, 10 DEM, GIS, Fire Low HMGP, HUD, SAFER Long- Term Yes, Modified Property Protection, Emergency Services/ Response Yes (Safety) County- wide C, CF Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-9 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) 2023 Status: This data is tracked as part of land use development and permitting requirements for site development as a regular course of activity. However, with the continued growth in certain areas of the county, this data will become more important. This information may also be utilized in the potential CWPP development, and will be information utilized by citizens when establishing potential mitigation strategies for the CWPP. CW-8 Continue implementation of public education program within Mason County to educate citizens about the hazards faced and the appropriate preparedness and response measures , including, but not limited to, NFIP information and insurance. New/ Existing All All DEM, Local and County CD Low EMPG, General Fund Ongoing Yes Prevention, Public Info/ Education Yes (Communi- cations) County and Com- munity CF 2023 Status: The County routinely provides public outreach to its citizens annually on emergency management and public safety matters. During those events, there is discussion about the hazards of concern, as well as citizens’ ability to mitig ate the impact from the hazards. This includes various hazard-specific insurance. CW-9 Continue to expand CERT training, involving local teams in exercises and training with first responders. New/ Existing All 6, 7 DEM Low EMPG Ongoing Yes, Modified Prevention, Public Info/ Education, Emergency Services, Response, Recovery Yes (Safety & Security) County and Com- munity CF 2023 Status: The County regularly completes CERT training classes, having completed 14 total with 275 individuals having completed the class. Since completion of the last plan in 2018, three additional CERT classes have been conducted. During COVID, limited classes could occur. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-10 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-10 Develop and prepare a fueling plan, addressing both automotive and heating fuels, in case of prolonged interruption of normal distribution to Mason County locations. New and Existing EQ, F, LS, SW, T 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 DEM, Sheriff, LE, Fire, PW and Local PW Low General Fund, EMPG and other grants which may become available. Long- Term Yes Response, Recovery Yes (Energy) County and Local CF 2023 Status: No progress made. CW-11 Evaluate current coverage and equipment and provide a strategic emergency communications plan that provides better coverage to all areas of Mason County for first responders and emergency amateur radio communications. Continued training and recruitment will need to occur. Existing All 6, 9 DEM Low General Funds Short- Term Yes - Modified Emergency Services/ Response, Prevention, Public Info/ Education Yes (Comms) County and Local C, CF 2023 Status: Since completion of the last HMP, the County updated its CEMP, which included an update to ESF 2 – Communications. CW-12 Review designated emergency shelter structural and utility readiness for occupancy after a significant incident. The County will attempt to gain Red Cross perspective with respect to the adequacy and functionality of shelters utilized. New/ Existing All 1, 5, 6, 9, 11 DEM Mediu m BRIC, HMGP, General Funds Short- Term Yes, Modified Prevention, Public Info, Emergency Services/ Response Yes (Food/ Shelter) Regional C Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-11 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) 2023 Status: The County utilizes different shelter locations, which are customarily a facility utilized for joint purposes, and are maintained at a constant readiness level. In some instances, the structures utilized are not owned by the County, but the County will continue to work with the owning entity and Red Cross to ensure shelters are appropriately maintained. CW-13 Provide steep slope stability recommendations and education to owners of structures above steep bluffs or below steep bluffs. Increase monitoring of county bluffs involving beach communities or access to beach communities. New/ Existing EQ, F, LS, SW 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 DEM, County and Local PW, CD, WDNR Mediu m BRIC, HMGP, General Funds Long- Term Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection Yes (Safety, Transpor- tation County and Local C, CF 2023 Status: The County recently updated its Shoreline Program, which identified areas of geologic hazards along the bluff. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is currently in the update process. In conjunction with those efforts, a large amount of public outreach is required, during which geologically hazardous areas are identified and discussed. CW-14 Conduct a needs assessment to determine logistical requirements for equipment and parts for wells and water distribution sources to ensure a surplus allowing for continued supply of water in case commodity flow is impacted by a major event. New/ Existing All 3 PH, DEM PW, WDOE Mediu m Earthquak e and Tsunami Program Grant Funds, EPA, EMPG Ongoing Yes Response, Recovery Yes (Food/ Water) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The majority of the wells in the planning area are private wells. The public purveyors supplying water do maintain a surplus of some of the parts necessary to ensure continued services. The County does not have staffing to conduct this assessment, but does feel such data would be relevant, and therefore will carry it forward. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-12 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-15 Promote a “FireWise” program in County to increase fire safety zones around businesses and residences. Encourage owners to reduce woodland fuel loads on their property. New/ Existing D, WF 3, 8, 10 DEM, Fire Low Fire Grants, BRIC, HMGP Ongoing Yes Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Prevention Yes (Safety, All) Local CF 2023 Status: The fire service providers throughout the county have applied for a grant to complete a CWPP, which promotes the Fire Wise program. CW-16 Work with local jurisdiction and planning partners to develop various emergency planning efforts to help ensure continuity of business and resiliency. New/ Existing All 5, 6, 9 DEM, ED, Chamber Mediu m EMPG Funds, General Funds Long- Term Yes Recovery Yes (All) County, Local CF 2023 Status: The County DEM regularly work with the local planning partners to develop various emergency plans, as well as to continue lines of communications. Quarterly meetings of the LEPC also serves as the Emergency Management Planning Committee. CW-17 Identify and establish redundant or back-up emergency operations center locations throughout the County in case of road closures which restrict access to areas of the County. New All 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 DEM, Public Officials -County and Local Mediu m ARPA, EMPG and General Funds as available Short- Term Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) County and Local CF 2023 Status: A building in north Mason County was recently purchased; renovations are underway. It is anticipated that the structure may be completed by the end of 2023; however, due to the availability of funding to ensure the EOC can be completed with all equipment, the this action is being carried forward. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-13 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-18 Partner with Washington State Department of Transportation to expand earthquake assessment, and to expand and implement training and exercises throughout the county which support transportation -related issues and potential isolation. New/ Existing EQ, All 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 DEM, PW, WSDOT Mediu m US DOT and WSDOT Grants, HLS Long- Term Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Transpor- tation) Regional CF 2023 Status: This continues to be an on-going function given the landslide propensity along the various highways in the County. CW-19 Continue to promote and establish a countywide emergency management actions, projects, and programs, working with City of Shelton and special purpose districts, to enhance resiliency and maintain consistency in mitigation activities, emergency management programs, and capabilities. This includes seeking grant funding to support such initiatives. New/ Existing All 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11 DEM, Fire, Hospital s Mediu m General Funds, Grant Opportunit ies as they arise Long- Term Yes Prevention, Public Information and Education, Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (All) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The County DEM regularly work with the local planning partners to develop various emergency plans, as well as to continue lines of communications. Quarterly meetings of the LEPC also serves as the Emergency Management Planning Committee. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-14 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-20 Strive to capture time-sensitive, perishable data such as high-water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss information following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment and in support of future grant applications to demonstrate impact. New/ Existing All 4, 8, 9, 10 DEM Mediu m General Funds Long- Term Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The County works with all of the local agencies and the City of Shelton to continue this effort. This becomes particularly significant when attempting to gain a disaster declaration. Data captured during previous events has been integrated into this HMP update as well. CW-21 Continue to enhance local emergency planning committee involvement with all fire organizations throughout the County with the goal of quarterly meetings. Existing WF 4, 8, 9, 10 DEM, Fire Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Prevention, Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) County and Local CF 2023 Status: This continues to be a priority for DEM. The LEPC was utilized in the update of this HMP, and proved to be a reliable format to host community public outreach efforts with respect to the plan development. All fire districts now participate in the quarterly LEPC meetings (as schedules permit). CW-22 Seek grant funding to develop a countywide mass care and evacuation exercise, which includes all fire and police departments, Hospital District, Public Health, County Transit, Emergency Management and search-and-rescue, as well as other planning partners as identified during exercise design. New and Existing All 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 DEM, Fire, Hospital s, PH, PW, WSDOT; Sheriff, LE High EMPG, DOJ Grants, Fire Training Grants, EMPG Long- Term Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Health and Medical) County and Local CF Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-15 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) 2023 Status: In response to COVID, the County and several of the identified agencies in this strategy worked together in various ways. For the 2018-2023 period, the majority of the time was spent in response to COVID, so a separate exercise did not occur. The County and its planning partners do feel this is a valid project to complete within the life cycle of this update. CW-23 For municipal partners continue to integrate mitigation planning data into ongoing land-use planning to assist in providing information necessary to enforce existing building codes, floodplain and critical areas ordinances, and shoreline protection. For special purpose districts, integrate information from the mitigation plan into other planning initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, response plans, evacuation plans, shelter plans, etc. New and Existing F, EQ, LS, SW 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 18 DEM Low FEMA Short- Term Yes Prevention, Emergency Services, Planning, Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) Local and County CF 2023 Status: The planning partners do utilize the date from the HMP in its regular planning efforts. As the County begins the update of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, on which several of the UGA rely, data from this plan will continue to support that effort. CW-24 Develop countywide mutual aid agreements with both public and private agencies in support of preparedness and response activities. New All 4, 5, 6 DEM Mediu m General Funds Ongoing Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (All) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The County and several of its planning partners have developed MOUs/MOAs with various entities. This was particularly true during COVID response. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-16 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) CW-25 Capture data concerning the number of portable generators at fueling stations and local grocery outlets to determine need to acquire generators to ensure fuel availability and food items during significant events which may impact transportation flows, reducing commodities in the planning area. If necessary, seek grant opportunities to purchase generators for use during such events. New/ Existing All 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 DEM Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Food, Water, Shelter; Energy) County and Local CF 2023 Status: No progress made. CW-26 Capture information concerning the surplus supply maintained by local fueling stations and grocery outlets to determine quantities available should commodities be interrupted as a result of a significant incident. New/ Existing All 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 PW Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes (Food, Water, Shelter, Energy) County and Local CF 2023 Status: No progress made. CW-27 Develop countywide debris management plan. New/ Existing EQ, F, LS, SW, WF 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 PW High Grant Sources TBD Long- Term Yes Recovery Yes (Transpor- tation, Health and Medical, Food, Water, Shelter, Safety and Security) County and Local CF Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-17 September 2023 Table 12-2 Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and 2023 Status New or Existing Assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency* Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R), Completed (C) Modified (M) 2023 Status: No progress made. Lack of funding to staff project. CW-28 Work with various communications organizations within the area to identify location of cell towers and capacity to support area during disaster incidents. New/ Existing All 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 PW Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Emergency Services/ Response, Recovery Yes Communi- cation County and Local CF 2023 Status: No progress made. * CD=Community Development (local and county); ED=Economic Development; DEM= Emergency Management (Interlocal Agreement whereby County provides services to city); Fire=Districts and Depts.; HS=Human Services; LE=Law Enforcement; PH=Public Health; PW=Public Works (local and county); WSDOT=Washington State Dept. of Transportation; WDOH=Washington State Dept. of Health; WDNR=Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources; WDOE=Washington Dept. of Ecology. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-18 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-1 Study and retrofit county owned facilities to better withstand damage from earthquake, flood, severe weather. Existing EQ, F, SW, All 1, 3, 4 5, 7, 8, 11 DEM, Facilities High HLS/EMPG, BRIC, HMGP, HUD, General Funds Ongoing Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection Yes (Safety, Comms, Transportat ion, HazMat, Health and Medical, Food, Water, Shelter) Facility CF 2023 Status: As structures have been remodeled, the County has ensured that new buildings are built to higher standards. An assessment of all structures has not occurred. The County feels this is a valid project, and will continue to seek grant funding to identify vulnerable structures. C-2 Evaluate and enhance the current capital improvements program for county roads , including the Skokomish Valley and Cloquallum Roads, as well as drainage projects to provide better flood control in known flood problem areas, including drainage system maintenance plans and sediment and debris clearance to ensure unobstructed flow of floodwaters . New/ Existing F, SW 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 8, 11 PW High General Funds, HLS (EMPG), CDC grants Long- Term Partial Property Protection, Structural Projects, Natural Resource Protection Yes (Trans- portation) County and Local CF 2023 Status: The County has installed new flood gauges to identify the various runs of the river during flooding in an effort to better understand the depth involved. Portions of the roadways have been improved since the last plan was completed, such as the Dips, but additional work remains to be done. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-19 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-3 Seek steep slope stability project funding or relocation funding for county roads with histories of instability. Existing EQ, F, LS, SW, WF 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 8, 10, 11 PW High BRIC, HMGP, USDOT, WSDOT Long- Term Yes Property Protection, Structural Projects, Natural Resource Protection Yes (Trans- portation) County CF 2023 Status: The County has worked with WDOT on a number of state roadways that have been significantly impacted by landslides. The County has also completed several road improvements to stabilize roadways, but additional work is needed. C-4. Seek grant funding for acquisition of properties in high-hazard areas, with special attention to repetitive loss properties. Existing F, All 1, 2, 4 BOCC, DEM High BRIC, HMGP, FMA Long- Term Yes Property Protection, Structural Projects Yes (Safety) Facility and County CF 2023 Status: The County continues to work with land owners in impacted areas. C-5. Obtain and install river gauges on the Tahuya River. New/ Existing F, SW 3, 6, 9 DEM, PW, USGS High HMGP, USGS Grant Ongoing Yes Response, Recovery Yes (Safety, Transporta- tion, Communi- cations) County C, CF 2023 Status: The County has purchased and installed several gauges since completion of the last plan; however, additional gauges are necessary. The County will continue to work with USGS on this project. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-20 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-6. Work with WA DOT or seek grant funding for County roadways to address areas in high landslide areas. When funding received, complete project. New LS 3, 4, 6, 7 DEM, PW/Roads, WSDOT Low General Fund, DOH Short- Term Yes, Modified Prevention Public Information and Education, Response, Recovery Yes (Trans- portation) County and Local C, CF 2023 Status: WDOT did complete some work on the Purdy Cutoff on 2009, but issues still remain in certain areas. Additional work is needed to ensure appropriate ingress and egress. C-7 Continue participation in the NFIP; considering implementing various steps which will increase CRS scores to help lower insurance premiums. New/ Existing F, SW 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 DEM, Planning Medium General Fund Long- Term Yes Prevention, Mitigation Yes (Communi- cation, Safety) County CF 2023 Status: While the County feels this is a worthwhile effort, they lack staffing and funding to implement additional elements to increase CRS points. However, the County will continue to work on this effort to ensure continued NFIP compliance. C-8 Continue working with the Skokomish Watershed Action Team (SWAT) to support on-going mitigation activities within the Skokomish Watershed. New/ Existing F, SW, LS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 DEM, SWAT, PW Low General Fund Ongoing Yes Mitigation, Recovery Yes (All) County and Local CF 2023 Status: Since completion of the last plan, the County has diligently participated with SWAT, and has been able to install additional gauges on the river to assist in data gathering to support alerts and notifications, as well as obtain depth data for future planning and construction efforts. The County will continue to actively pursue mitigation activities within the watershed to help reduce the impacts of flooding. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-21 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-9 Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic and code standards, including redundant essential equipment. Apply current seismic, wind and snow-load standards to all renovation or replacement of existing facilities, and/or equipment. New/ Existing EQ, LS, SW 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 Building High BRIC, HMGP Ongoing Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection Yes (Safety, Food, Water, Shelter) County C, CF 2023 Status: While limited new county-owned construction has occurred since completion of the 2018 plan, with all new construction or significant remodels, the county ensures the most up-to-date codes are applied. C-10 Conduct activities that support mitigation efforts to reduce the negative influence of natural hazards impacting Mason County, such as appropriate hazard identification, warning, dissemination of relevant information and data, and public outreach. New All All CD, PH, DEM Low General Fund, EMPG, HLS grants. Ongoing Yes Structural Projects, Public Information and Education, Natural Resource Protection Yes (Safety, Communi- cations) County, Facility, Local C, CF 2023 Status: The County routinely conducts public outreach efforts which identify the hazards of concern, vulnerability, and mitigation efforts which can be taken to reduce impact. The County also has maintained the mitigation website since completion of the last plan, on which the HMP is placed, as well as hazard maps. During the various outreach efforts and the countywide safety fairs that have occurred since completion of the 2018 plan, the County has provided information on alert and warning, increasing the number of individuals that have signed up for emergency alerts. The County has also continued its efforts to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities by supporting a registration bank on which residents can register, which is utilized to help alert responders to residents wi th special needs. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-22 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-11 Work with local public and private entities to review infrastructure control systems and ensure appropriate level of security and protection measures are in place. As appropriate, conduct audit of policies and procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy in application of security devices in place. Existing All 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 DEM, PUDs, IT, Law Enforcement Fire Service Agencies Low General Funds Short- Term Yes Prevention, Property Protection, Emergency Services Yes (Safety, Energy, Communi- cations, All) Regional CF 2023 Status: The County, in conjunction with its planning partners, continue to work with the local service providers, businesses, and industries to assist with identification of hazards and threats, and the potential implementation of security devices and measures. C-12 Implement cost-effective measures to address vulnerability of facilities at risk to sea level rise, extreme high tides and storm surges as they relate to potential inflow of saltwater. This includes working with local private water purveyors. New/ Existing CC, EQ, F, LS, SW 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 DEM, PH, PW, WDNR, WDOH, WDOE Medium BRIC, HMGP, General Funds, Ecology, DOH, HLS Long- Term Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection Yes (Food, Water, Shelter) County CF 2023 Status: The County was again reminded in 2022 of the significance of this issue as it was significantly impacted by the King Tides occurring during this plan development. Several residential structures were impacted. While anticipated sea leve l rise is minimal in the county when compared to other areas of the state, the county lacks the funding and staff to conduct a sea level rise or climate change study to support any policy development or revisions. While this matter will be addressed in th e Shoreline Master Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there is minimal data available to support significant changes in planning and land use at present. The County will continue to seek funding to institute such a study which will better support this matter. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-23 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-13 Utilize data gathered during risk assessment to identify capital projects that, when modified, increase the resilience of the County’s structures and conveyances to damage, or that allow a more expedited process for recovery from the impact of disaster incidents. New/ Existing All All DEM, PW, Planning, FEMA, WDNR Medium Earthquake and Tsunami Program Grant Funds, General Funds, BRIC, HMGP Short- Term Yes Structural Projects, Property Protection, Recovery Yes, Safety, Food, Water, Shelter, Health and Medical, Energy, All) Facility, County C, CF 2023 Status: During incidents of impact from the various hazards of concern, the County has utilized information from the mitigation plan to identify vulnerable structures and areas of risk, as well as identifying potential mitigation action items or strategies which can be implemented to help reduce risk. C-14 Consider projects enhancing resistance of county structures to impact from hazards of concern, such as seismic bracing of equipment, piping and fixtures, removal of high hazard beams, access road reinforcement, or seismic upgrades of underwater interceptors. New/ Existing EQ, LS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 DEM, PW High Earthquake and Tsunami Grant Program, BRIC, HMGP Ongoing Yes Property Protection, Structural Projects Yes (Safety, Food, water, Shelter, Energy, Transporta- tion, Hazmat) Facility, County CF Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-24 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) 2023 Status: All structures remodeled since completion of the 2018 HMP have been enhanced structurally to reduce the potential impact from the hazards of concern. But one example is the courthouse, which was acquired since completion of the last plan. The structure was remodeled/enhanced prior to the County taking occupancy to help ensure life safety of individuals in the structure. C-15 Implement a recovery system to ensure maximum FEMA reimbursement for disaster response, repair, mitigation and recovery, which will capture and track emergency activities, associated expenses (mileage, supplies, expendables, outside vendors, etc.), employee time and dedicated resources. New/ Existing All 6, 8, 9 DEM, Risk, Finance, PW Medium EMPG Funds, General Funds Long- Term Yes Recovery Yes (All) County CF 2023 Status: The County has established a process and system for capturing impact data to support recovery and reimbursement from FEMA. This effort continues to evolve and expand. C-16 Utilize data from the current risk assessment and comprehensive land use planning effort currently underway to update GIS capacity and capabilities. New All 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 County GIS, Planning, DEM Medium HMGP, EMPG and General Funds Short- Term Yes Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) County CF 2023 Status: During the life cycle of this 2023 update, the County will be updating its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. GIS data and information from this update will be utilized as the COMP Plan is updated as well. C-17 Develop a web-based application to capture damage assessment from citizens, which can be verified by emergency personnel to expedite damage assessment. This may include an interface between the Assessor’s office for property values, as well as a mechanism for rapid windshield assessment by first responders. New/ Existing All 3, 5, 6 7, 9 IT, Assessor’s Office, Risk Mgmt. DEM Medium General Funds, HLS, HMGP Short- Term Yes Recovery Yes (Safety, Communi- cations) County CF 2023 Status: The County lacks funding to develop, maintain and train personnel for a system of this nature. However, it remains a valid project if funding can be gained. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-25 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-18 Assess the County’s communications systems to determine its current vulnerability. This will include a review of the number of radios necessary to allow for adequate communications during emergency situations with field units, emergency response personnel, and emergency managers. Existing All 9 DEM, IT, PW Low General Funds Ongoing No Emergency Services, Response Yes (Communi- cations) County and Local C-19 In accordance with OSHA/WISHA requirements for all employees performing emergency response activities (post - disaster), identify and train County staff and volunteers that will be utilized for these efforts. Training to be considered includes: ATC 20/45, Disaster Site Worker Training, and Emergency Response Training, Damage Assessment. New/ Existing All 3, 6, 7, 9 BOCC, DEM, All County Depts. High EMPG, DOJ Grants, Fire Training Grants, Ongoing Yes Emergency Services, Response, Recovery Yes (Safety) County C, CF 2023 Status: The County has historically trained several employees in the various response discipline of emergency management. With COVID 19, many of the training opportunities were not available. As training becomes more readily available, the County will continue to comply with the requirements. C-20 Develop (or update) plans to ensure response and recovery efforts. This includes working with the BOCC to develop appropriate committees, such as a continuity of operations team, which will develop a countywide continuity of operations plan, and an emergency communications team which will look at communications and interoperability issues. Existing All 3, 5, 6, 9, DEM, BOCC Low BRIC, HMGP, HLS, HUD grants Long- Term Yes Response and Recovery Yes (All) County C, CF 2023 Status: Since completion of the 2018 HMP, the County has completed various emergency management plans, including a comprehensive update to its CEMP. DEM will continue to work with the BOCC to continue updating its various plans over the lifecycle of this 2023 HMP. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-26 September 2023 Table 12-3 County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives New or Existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Funding Sources Timeline In Previous Plan? CRS Initiative Type Supports Community Lifelines Yes/No (Sector Impacted) Who Benefits? 2023 Status – Carried Forward (CF), Removed (R) Completed (C), Modified (M) C-21 Develop public outreach which supports community participation in incentive-based programs, such as FireWise and StormReady. The County and its fire districts have applied for 2023 funding to develop a CWPP. If granted, such funds will be utilized for establishing the FireWise outreach necessary. New/ Existing All 3, 6, 9, 10, DEM Low General Funds Ongoing New Public Information and Education, Emergency Services/ Response Yes (Safety, Communi- cations) County CF 2023 Status: As of this update, the fire service agencies countywide have submitted a grant to develop a CWPP. A component of the CWPP is the FireWise program, which will be promoted as a part of the CWPP development. The County is also a StormReady community, and will continue to strive to maintain that designation. 12.6 BENEFIT/COST REVIEW Once the general analysis was completed for each mitigation initiative, 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the initiatives or action items according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed projects and their associated costs (Section 201.6.c.3iii). The benefit/cost analysis conducted during this planning process is not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) (previously Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)) grant program. Rather, parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the costs and benefi ts of these projects. Cost ratings were defined as follows: • High —Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). • Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-27 September 2023 • Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: • High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. • Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. Prioritization of the projects in such a manner serves as a guide for choosing and funding projects. 12.7 PRIORITIZATION OF INITIATIVES The method for prioritizing initiatives for the 2023 remains the same method used for the previous mitigation initiatives. The factors involved in the ranking remain consistent, with a category or level (high/medium/low) assigned with those identified factors to ensure consistency. Table 12-4 lists the priority of each countywide initiative. Table 12-5 lists the priority for each county-specific initiative. A qualitative benefit-cost review as described above was performed for each of these initiatives. Table 12-4. Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant Eligible? Can Project Be Funded under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (High, Med., Low) 1 4 H L Y Y Y H 2 2 H L Y Y Y H 3 4 H L Y Y Y H 4 7 H L Y Y Y H 5 3 H M Y N Y M 6 7 H M Y N Y M 7 4 M L Y N Y M 8 11 H L Y Y Y H 9 2 H L Y Y Y H 10 7 H L Y N Y H 11 2 H L Y N Y H 12 5 H M Y Y Y H 13 6 H M Y Y Y H 14 1 M M Y Y N M 15 3 M L Y Y N L Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-28 September 2023 Table 12-4. Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant Eligible? Can Project Be Funded under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (High, Med., Low) 16 3 M M Y Y Y M 17 5 H M Y Y Y M 18 6 M M Y Y N M 19 9 H M Y N N M 20 4 H L Y Y N H 21 4 M L Y N Y M 22 8 H H Y Y N M 23 8 L M N Y N L 24 3 H M Y N Y M 25 6 M L Y N Y M 26 5 M L Y N Y M 27 5 H H Y Y N M 28 5 M L Y N Y M Table 12-5. Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives Initiative # # of Objective s Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant Eligible? Can Project Be Funded under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (High, Med., Low) 1 7 H H Y Y N H 2 7 M H N Y N M 3 8 H H Y Y Y H 4 3 M H Y Y Y M 5 3 H H Y Y N H 6 4 H H Y Y N H 7 7 H L Y N Y H 8 5 H L Y Y Y H 9 8 H H Y N N L 10 11 H L Y Y N H 11 5 H L Y Y Y H 12 7 M M Y Y N M Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-29 September 2023 Table 12-5. Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives Initiative # # of Objective s Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant Eligible? Can Project Be Funded under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (High, Med., Low) 13 11 M M Y N N L 14 9 H H Y Y N H 15 3 H M Y N Y M 16 6 H H Y Y Y H 17 5 H M Y Y Y H 18 1 M L Y N Y L 19 4 H H Y N Y H 20 4 H L Y Y N M 21 4 H L Y Y Y H The priorities are defined as follows: • High Priority—A project that meets multiple objectives (i.e., multiple hazards), has benefits that exceed cost, has funding secured or is an ongoing project and meets eligibility requirements for the HMGP or BRIC grant program. High priority projects can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority—A project that meets goals and objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and for which funding has not been secured but that is grant eligible under HMGP, BRIC or other grant programs. Project can be completed in the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority projects will become high priority projects once funding is secured. • Low Priority—A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for HMGP or BRIC grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority projects may be eligible for other sources of grant funding from other programs. For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, the partners may seek financial assistance under the HMGP or BRIC programs, both of which require detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, the partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet the goals and objectives of this plan. Because this is a multi-jurisdictional plan, the prioritization of initiatives specific to the remaining jurisdictions must also be done at the individual level based on the needs and programs of that body, and accomplished as resources can be secured. Funding to complete any initiative will likely be acquired from a variety of sources, with the lack of funding alone preventing an initiative from being implemented. As such, the less formal approach used during this process is more appropriate Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-30 September 2023 because some projects may not be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time. The method of prioritization utilized also allows for the inclusion of new projects throughout the life cycle of this plan without having to numerically re-value each of the projects based on an assigned value of 1, 2, 3, etc. Further, it supports the plan maintenance strategy for review, addition, and reprioritization of initiatives on an annual basis, reducing the level of effort involved in a numeric system of ranking, and enhancing the likelihood that the annual review will occur as a r educed level of effort will be required. 12.8 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION ACTIVITIES: In addition to the projects identified above, additional efforts include: • The Skokomish Watershed Action Team (SWAT) has completed a number of stewardship projects since completion of the last plan. Highlights include timber sale, the funds from which will be used to replace faulty road culverts and other restoration activities in the upper watershed. The group is also in the final stages of a feasibility study of three potential options for realigning the Skokomish Valley Road. • Since completion of the 2018 plan, the SWAT has also worked to install additional river gauges to help capture data and provide additional information with respect to alert and warning for residents in the area. • Volunteers from the SWAT Committee have continued to inspect road culverts which are in need of replacement, establishing a list for proposed restoration projects which the Forest Service may incorporate. 12.9 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Although a number of the mitigation projects listed may not be eligible for FEMA funding, Mason County and its planning partners may secure alternate funding sources to implement these projects in the future including federal and state grant programs. Funds may also become available through the county or planning partner budgets via general funds, which may include various tax-based or other available funds as identified in Sections 12.7 and Chapter 13.23 In some instances, there may be multiple sources of grant funding available, which will be determined at the time of application based on the funding mechanism, which annually identifies potential uses or restrictions to the funds. 23 All planning partners also have the option of utilizing their entities General Funds (those funds which are not classified elsewhere), which are used to finance the daily and long-term operations through revenues generated through various sources, and are not restricted by law to a specific program. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-31 September 2023 In order to be eligible for some of those grant funds, completion of a hazard mitigation plan may be required. Table 12-6 identifies some of those grant requirements. Additional funding sources identified in Table 12-7 are also available which support various types of mitigation efforts on a countywide basis. At present, the County and its planning partners have utilized the Stafford Act funding available as a result of a disaster declaration such as the public assistance (all categories as applicable) and individual assistance (when approved), as well as regularly pursuing the homeland security grants. The various fire agencies have also pursued funding through fire management grants, including a pending application for development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and regularly seeking funds for new fire stations and equipment. All planning partners also have the option of utilizing their entities General Funds (those funds which are not classified elsewhere), which are used to finance the daily and long-term operations through revenues generated through various sources, and are not restricted by law to a specific program. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-32 September 2023 Table 12-6 Grant Opportunities Enabling Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement Program Legislation Funding Authorization Grantee Sub-Grantee Public Assistance, Categories A-B (debris removal, emergency protective measures) Stafford Act Presidential Disaster Declaration   Public Assistance, Categories C-G (e.g., repair of damaged infrastructure, publicly owned buildings) Stafford Act Presidential Disaster Declaration   Individual Assistance (IA) Stafford Act Presidential Disaster Declaration   Fire Management Assistance Grants Stafford Act Fire Management Assistance Declaration  □ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Planning Grant Stafford Act Presidential Disaster Declaration  □ HMGP Project Grant Stafford Act Presidential Disaster Declaration   Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) (Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Planning Grant) Stafford Act Annual Appropriation   Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) National Flood Insurance Act Annual Appropriation   Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) National Flood Insurance Act Annual Appropriation   Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) National Flood Insurance Act Annual Appropriation  □ Washington State DOE Watershed Plan Implementation and Flow Grants Washington State As funded by State of Washington Not Required Homeland Security Dept. of Homeland Security Annual Appropriation  □ American Rescue Plan Act ARP Legislation Annual Appropriation Not Required  = Hazard Mitigation Plan Required □ = No Hazard Mitigation Plan Required Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 12-33 September 2023 Table 12-7 Countywide Fiscal Capabilities Which Support Mitigation Planning Efforts Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding Y Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service N Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Y Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas N State Sponsored Grant Programs Y Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Y Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 13. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 13.1 LAWS AND ORDINANCES Existing laws, ordinances and plans at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard mitigation initiatives identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required by 44 CFR to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (Section 201.6.b(3)). Pertinent federal and state laws are described below. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information as referenced and identified in its specific jurisdictional annexes presented in Volume 2. This capability assessment not only identifies the capabilities of the municipalities and planning partners, but it also demonstrates an integration of planning efforts, as many times the capability also requires an associated plan. 13.1.1 Federal Disaster Mitigation Act The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving the planning partners’ eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds. Endangered Species Act The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. The ESA defines three fundamental terms: • Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.) • Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Regulations may be less restrictive than for endangered species. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-2 September 2023 • Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.” Nation Landslide Preparedness Act On January 5, 2021, the National Landslide Preparedness Act (P.L. 116-323) was signed into law authorizing a national landslide hazards reduction program and a 3D elevation program within the USGS. This broadened the already existing Landslide Hazards Program under the Natural Hazards Mission Area, and the 3D Elevation Program under the National Geospatial Program and required additional coordination with other federal agencies. Coastal Zone Management Act All states with federally approved coastal programs delineate a coastal zone consistent with the general standards act set forth in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). According to the CZMA, the coastal zone area should encompass all important coastal resources including transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, beaches, coastal waters, and adjacent shorelines where activities could have the potential to impact the coastal waters. Federal land is excluded from the state coastal zone by the CZMA. Washington State has established the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program, which was approved by the federal government in 1976, making it the first to be approved, applying to 15 coastal counties which front on salt water. The Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s surface waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach. Presidential Disaster Declarations Presidentially declared disasters are disaster events that cause more damage than state and local governments/resources can handle without federal assistance. A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, and designed to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. A Presidential Emergency Declaration can also be declared, but assistance is limited to specific emergency needs. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-3 September 2023 13.1.2 State-Level Planning Initiatives Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA provides guidance for hazard mitigation throughout Washington. The plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives, actions and initiatives for state government to reduce injury and damage from natural hazards. By meeting federal requirements for an enhanced state plan (44 CFR parts 201.4 and 201.5), the plan allows the state to seek significantly higher funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following presidential declared disasters (20 percent of federal disaster expenditures versus 15 percent with a standard plan). Growth Management Act The 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A) mandates that local jurisdictions adopt land use ordinances which protect the following critical areas: • Wetlands • Critical aquifer recharge areas • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas. The Growth Management Act (GMA) regulates development in these areas, and therefore has the potential to affect hazard vulnerability and exposure at the local level. Coastal Zone Management Program Washington State has established the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program in conjunction with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which was approved by the federal government in 1976, making it the first to be approved, applying to 15 coastal counties which front on salt water. Shoreline Management Act The 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) was enacted to manage and protect the shorelines of the state by regulating development in the shoreline area. A major goal of the act is to prevent the “inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal developm ent of the state’s shorelines.” Its jurisdiction includes the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and rivers, streams and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines. Washington State Building Code The Washington State Building Code Council annually adopts the current editions of national model codes. The Council also adopts changes to the Washington State Energy Code and Ventilation and Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-4 September 2023 Indoor Air Quality Code. Washington’s state-developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Washington’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law (RCW 38.52) establishes parameters to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters, to ensure the administration of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals, to ensure adequate support for search and rescue operations, to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. Washington State Floodplain Management Law Washington’s floodplain management law (RCW 86.16, implemented through WAC 173-158) states that prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMA’s national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties) authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities directed toward a public purpose. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington’s first flood control maintenance program was passed in 1951, and was called the Flood Control Maintenance Program (FCMP). In 1984, RCW 86.26 (State Participation in Flood Control Maintenance) established the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), which provides funding for local flood hazard management. FCAAP rules are found in WAC 173-145. Ecology distributes FCAAP matching grants to cities, counties and other special districts responsible for flood control. This is one of the few state programs in the U.S. that provides grant funding to local governments for floodplain management. Local jurisdictions must participate in the NFIP and be a member in good standing to qualify for an FCAAP grant. 13.1.3 Local Programs Each planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan contained in Volume 2, which identifies its regulatory, technical and financial capability to carry out proactive mitigation efforts. Additional jurisdiction-specific information is available for review within each of those annexes. The following sections present additional regulatory information that applies to the planning partnership. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-5 September 2023 Puget Sound Regional Catastrophic Disaster Coordination Plan The Regional Catastrophic Planning Team was formed to guide and manage the Puget Sound Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program funded by FEMA. Supporting the coordination of regional all-hazard planning for catastrophic events that may impact the region, the effort includes the development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols, and procedures to manage a catastrophic event. The Regional Catastrophic Planning Team consists of representatives from designated emergency management interests across an eight-county area (see Figure 13-1), including Mason County. As of this 2023 update, the existing Catastrophic Plan is currently in the update phase, with a specific emphasis on the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, and emphasize a closer relationship with supply chain issues and logistics. Comprehensive Land Use Plans Comprehensive plans are long-range in nature and serve as policy guides for how a jurisdiction plans to manage growth and development with respect to the natural environment and available resources. Washington State law (36.70A.040 RCW) requires that jurisdictions operating under the Growth Management Act develop comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent with the comprehensive plans and implement them (36.70A RCW). The County’s plan is currently under review and update, with a December 2024 anticipated completion date. 13.2 MITIGATION-RELATED REGULATORY AUTHORITY Hazard mitigation builds on a community’s existing capabilities in place, including financial, regulatory, programmatic and planning capabilities. The County’s capabilities to implement mitigation projects include community planners, engineers, floodplain managers, GIS personnel, emergency managers, and financial, legal and regulatory requirements (zoning, building codes, subdivision regulations, and floodplain management ordinances). These resources have the responsibility to provide overview of past, current, and ongoing pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning projects, including capital improvement programs, wildfire mitigation programs, stormwater management programs, and NFIP compliance projects. The following information and tables identify the County’s capabilities with respect to (mitigation) efforts of varying types. Each planning partner also completed the same tables within their respective Annex documents. Regulatory, Technical, Community Organizations, Programs and Social Systems Regulatory capabilities currently available are summarized in Table 13-1. In addition to the financial and regulatory capabilities summarized in Table 13-2, there are other programs available, some of which provide incentives for citizens. Such programs further enhance resiliency throughout the Figure 13-1 Counties in Puget Sound Regional Catastrophic Planning Region Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-6 September 2023 County. Two such programs include the National Flood Insurance Program, and the Community Rating System, both of which are discussed in detail in Chapter 8 – Flood. Social systems can be defined as community organizations and programs that provide social and community-based services, such as health care or housing assistance, to the public. In planning for natural hazard mitigation, it is important to know what social systems exist within the community because of their existing connections to the public. Often, actions identified by the plan involve communicating with the public or specific subgroups within the population (e.g. elderly, children, low income). The County and its planning partners can use existing social systems as resources for implementing such communication-related activities because these service providers already work directly with the public on a number of issues, one of which could be natural hazard preparedness and mitigation. Table 13-3 identifies several of the ongoing efforts which assist in notification and social service programs, further enhancing the resilience of the County. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-7 September 2023 Table 13-1 Mason County Legal and Regulatory Capability Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Version Year Yes Yes Yes 2015 International Building Code as required by the State Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes MCC Title 17 Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes MCC Title 16 Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes FEMA Requirements Established and enforced. Stormwater Management Yes MCC Resource Ordinance Post Disaster Recovery No Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Growth Management Yes Yes 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update underway Site Plan Review Yes Public Health and Safety Yes Yes Yes Coastal Zone Management Yes Yes Yes Climate Change Adaptation Yes Some plans have begun to address this issue. Shoreline Master Program Yes Adopted RCW 90.58 (2021 Update) Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire, etc.) Yes Yes Mason County Resource Ordinance Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes Planning Documents Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yes Yes 2023 update in progress. Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes (See below) Stormwater Plan Yes Various plans are in place such as: the Skokomish River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan; the Belfair Stormwater Basin Plan, the Allyn Urban Growth Area Plan which manages stormwater; the Hoodsport Rural Activity Center Stormwater Plan, and the Countywide Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-8 September 2023 Table 13-1 Mason County Legal and Regulatory Capability Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes Habitat Conservation Plan No Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Plan only. Economic Development Plan Yes Yes Shoreline Management Plan Yes Yes Mason County Code, Section 17.50. Updated 2021. Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Yes No As of 2023 update, the fire services for the county have applied for funding to develop a countywide CWPP. Belfair Urban Growth Area Sub- Area Plan Yes Establishes the vision for an enhanced, multi-dimensional community with mixed-use development in identified areas. Shelton Urban Growth Area Sub-Area Plan Yes Establishes guiding goals and policies for future development within Shelton UGA. Transportation Plan Yes Yes Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Yes Updated 2021. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Yes No Homeland Security Region 3 Plan. Terrorism Plan Yes Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No ESF14 Continuity of Operations Plan Draft In-progress (some departments have completed their annex documents). Public Health Plans Yes Various public health plans are in place both through the Health Department and through the hospital districts. Administration, Boards and Commission Planning Commission Yes Yes Mitigation Planning Committee Yes Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee Yes Yes Yes RCW 90.94.030 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-9 September 2023 Table 13-1 Mason County Legal and Regulatory Capability Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems, chipping, etc.) Yes Various programs in place, including tree trimming, drainage systems, etc. Mutual Aid Agreements / Memorandums of Understanding MOAs: Area Agency on Aging – Area Agency provides information concerning high priority clients to enable (when possible) emergency management to assist with health and welfare checks for individuals with access and functional needs; Mason Transit – preparedness and disaster response including the potential for assistance in evacuating individuals with access and functional needs; DOC – Mission Creek Center for Women (for evacuation purposes to ensure protection and continuity). Table 13-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Y Planning Unit, Emergency Management Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Y Planning Unit Engineers specializing in construction practices? Y Planning Unit Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Y Planning Unit Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Y Planning Unit Surveyors Y Public Works Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y Planning Unit Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use Y Contracted Service Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Y The county has hazard-specific subject matter experts on staff in various departments, available via contracting mechanisms, and available through state resources. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-10 September 2023 Table 13-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position Emergency Manager Y Emergency Management Division with trained personnel and volunteers. Grant writers Y Planning Unit; Various County departments have internal personnel who write grants; county staff to monitor and write grants. Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) Y CodeRED (no reverse 9-1-1); Public Works signage available as needed. Hazard data and information available to public Y Planning Unit Maintain Elevation Certificates Y Through Planning Department. Table 13-3 Education and Outreach Program/Organization Available ? Department/Agency/Position and Brief Description Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? Y CERT and SAR trained personnel Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection? Y Mason Conservation District Organization focused on individuals with access and functional needs populations Y Voluntary Special Needs Registry in which Mason County residents can self-register if they have special medical needs (e.g. require oxygen or life support systems, have physical disabilities that would make independent evacuation difficult). Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Y Various agencies at the county and state levels which promote educational efforts such as Firewise, Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, and Fire Adapted Communities from the National Cohesive Wildfire Strategy. Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Y Pursuant to the RCW, schools are required to develop and exercise hazard-specific response plans. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? Y Various public education outreach; provide information and presentations; NFIP insurance; outreach for Continuity Planning. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-11 September 2023 Table 13-3 Education and Outreach Program/Organization Available ? Department/Agency/Position and Brief Description Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Y The County maintains information on its website to address specific hazards at issue; also, as situations arise, the website, email lists and local area broadcasting provides public service announcements and information. 13.3 WASHINGTON STATE RATING BUREAU LEVELS OF SERVICE In Washington, the Washington State Rating Bureau (WSRB) helps determine standards on which insurance rates are set. WSRB, like most other states, utilizes the Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO) to determine levels of protection based on a prescribed level of service. Two such levels of services assessed are the Public Protection Classification Program and the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule. 13.3.1 Public Protection Classification Program The Public Protection Classification (PPC) program recognizes the efforts of communities to provide fire protection services for citizens and property owners. A community’s investment in fire mitigation is a proven and reliable predicator of future fire losses. Insurance companies use PPC information to help establish fair premiums for fire insurance — generally offering lower premiums in communities with better protection. By offering economic benefits for communities that invest in their firefighting services, the program provides an additional incentive for improving and maintaining public fire protection. In order to establish appropriate fire insurance premiums for residential and commercial properties, insurance companies utilize up-to-date information about the Community’s fire-protection services. Through analysis of relevant data, communities are able to evaluate their public fire -protection services, and secure lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better protection. This program provides incentives and rewards in those areas with improved firefighting services. This program has gathered extensive information on more than 46,000 fire-response jurisdictions. Once all of the data is reviewed and analyzed, communities are assigned a PPC from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, while Class 10 indicates that the area’s fire- suppression program is not as robust. The most significant benefit of the PPC program is its effect on losses. Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — and low fire losses. PPC helps communities prepare to fight fires effectively. The program also provides help for fire departments and other public officials as they plan, budget for, and justify improvements. Table 13-4 identifies Public Protection Classifications for Mason County and the City of Shelton. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-12 September 2023 Table 13-4 Countywide Public Protection Classification Community Protection Class Grade Shelton, City of * 5 Fire District #1 6 Fire District #3 7 Fire District #4 6 Fire District #5* 5 Fire District #6 5 Fire District #11 4 Fire District #12 8 Fire District #13 7 Fire District #16 6 Fire District #17 7 Fire District #18 7 North Mason Regional Fire Authority 5 *City of Shelton Fire Dept. and FD #5 merged and are Central Mason Fire & EMS Data effective as of February 2023 13.3.2 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) assesses building codes and amendments adopted in a community and evaluates that community’s commitment to enforce them. The concept is simple: Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of reducing damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs provides an incentive for communities to enforce their building codes rigorously. Table 13-5 identifies the BCEGS for the planning partnership. Table 13-5 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Community Commercial Dwelling Mason County 4 4 City of Shelton 3 4 Data effective as of February 2023 13.3.3 Public Safety Programs Access and Functional Needs One of the most important roles of local government is to protect their citizens from harm, including helping people prepare for and respond to emergencies. Making local government emergency Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-13 September 2023 preparedness and response programs accessible to people with special needs is a critical part of this responsibility. Mason County Division of Emergency Management (DEM) has the mission to assess and plan for hazards and emergencies and work with other public safety and local government agencies to ensure public welfare. In an effort to provide services to all individuals county-wide, the County has developed a Special Needs Registry, which helps support individuals with access and functional needs. As a pre‐planning tool, the Special Needs Registry should be considered strongly for all people who have special medical needs (i.e. oxygen or life support systems that are dependent upon electrical power) or have physical disabilities that would make it difficult to evacuate independently if the need arose. More information on the program is available at: https://www.masoncountywa.gov/forms/dem/special_needs_planning.pdf Mason County Fire Districts Figure 13-2 Mason County Fire Districts, Departments, and Regional Fire Authority Mason County has a total of 13 fire districts serving its citizens. Within these fire districts, there are over 50 fire stations and structures owned by the various fire districts which protect the county during emergency situations. Fire prevention in Mason County is mainly focused on rural and wildland areas and is done through a Firewise community program in coordination with the WA DNR and the USFS. The purpose of Mason County Fire Districts is the provision of fire prevention services, fire suppression services, emergency medical services, and for the protection of life and property. Mason County Fire Districts enjoy a working relationship with Mason County Government through an Interlocal Agreement addressing fire investigations. The Mason County Fire Chiefs Association, (in partnership with local law enforcement agencies) provides fire investigation services on behalf of the Mason County Fire Marshal’s Office. Mason County Department of Community Development is Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Mitigation Strategy Bridgeview Consulting 13-14 September 2023 authority for inspections of all building sites prior to permit issuance, to include burn permits. Where there is limited or improper access to building(s), the Mason County fire protection plan calls for mandatory residential sprinkler system. Mason County StormReady County Mason County is also a recognized StormReady County under the National Weather Service Program. Achieving such status requires a significant level of effort. Being part of a Weather Ready Nation is about preparing for your community's increasing vulnerability to extreme weather and water events. The StormReady program helps arm America's communities with the communication and safety skills needed to save lives and property--before, during and after the event. StormReady helps community leaders and emergency managers strengthen local safety programs. CHAPTER 14. PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY In accordance with 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4), a hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following: • A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan over its five year life-cycle • A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of mitigation plans into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive land use plans (as appropriate) • A discussion on how the community will continue to engage public participation in mitigation planning `efforts. This section of the plan is focused on the plan maintenance strategy, and details the formal process that will ensure that the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable funding sources. The maintenance process identified for Mason County and its planning partners includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan and producing a plan revision every five years. This chapter also describes how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process. It also explains how the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan will be incorporated into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land-use planning processes, capital improvement planning, and building code enforcement and implementation. The plan’s format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data becomes available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. The Mason County Emergency Management Coordinator will maintain lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the mitigation action plans (see planning partner annexes in Volume 2 of this plan). 14.1 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND UPDATING THE PLAN The 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan identified a maintenance strategy which included regular reviews during the life cycle of the plan; however, due to lack of staffing and transition of emergency management personnel, the plan was not reviewed as originally intended. While the plan review did not occur as intended, the County and its planning partners were effective in completing several of the strategies and action items identified in the plan as discussed in Chapter 12. 14.1.1 Plan Implementation and Maintenance The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its implementation and incorporation of its action items into partner jurisdictions’ existing plans, policies and programs. Together, the action items in the plan provide a framework for activities that the partnership can implement over the next 5 years. The planning partners have established goals and objectives and have prioritized mitigation actions that will be implemented through existing plans, policies, and programs. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Plan Maintenance Bridgeview Consulting 14-2 September 2023 44 CFR requires that local hazard mitigation plans be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (Section 201.6.d.3). The Mason County partnership intends to update the hazard mitigation plan on a 5-year cycle from the date of initial plan adoption. This cycle may be accelerated to less than 5 years based on the following triggers: • A presidential disaster declaration that impacts the planning area. • A hazard event that causes loss of life. • A comprehensive update of the County or participating city/town’s comprehensive plan. It will not be the intent of future updates to develop a complete new hazard mitigation plan for the planning area. The update will, at a minimum, include the following elements: • The update process will be convened through a planning team. • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available information and technologies. • The action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any initiatives completed, dropped, or changed and to account for changes in the risk assessment or new partnership policies identified under other planning mechanisms (such as the comprehensive plan). • The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment. • The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption. • The partnership governing bodies will adopt their portions of the updated plan. The hazard mitigation plan will be reviewed annually and a progress report prepared. These reviews may be more or less frequent, as deemed necessary by the Emergency Management Director, but there will be a minimum of one review per year. The minimum task of each planning partner will be the evaluation of the progress of its individual action plan during a 12-month performance period. This review will include the following: • Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and the impact these events had on the planning area. • Review of mitigation success stories. • Review of continuing public involvement. • Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed. • Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term one because of new funding). • Recommendations for new projects. • Changes in or potential for new funding options (grant opportunities). • Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Plan Maintenance Bridgeview Consulting 14-3 September 2023 A template to guide the planning partners in preparing a progress report has been created as part of this planning process (see Appendix C). The Emergency Management Coordinator will then prepare a formal annual report on the progress of the plan. This report should be used as follows: • Posted on the Mason County website page dedicated to the hazard mitigation plan. • Provided to the local media through a press release. • Presented to planning partner governing bodies to inform them of the progress of actions implemented during the reporting period. Use of the progress report will be at the discretion of each planning partner. Annual progress reporting is not a requirement specified under 44 CFR. However, it may enhance the planning partnership’s opportunities for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a planning partner’s compliance under the DMA, completion of the annual review will reduce the level of effort involved in future plan updates, and is highly encouraged by FEMA. In addition to the annual review, three years after adoption of the hazard mitigation plan, the Director may decide to apply for a planning grant through FEMA to start the 2028 update. Upon receipt of funding, the County will solicit bids under applicable contracting procedures and hire a contractor to assist with the project. The proposed schedule for completion of the plan update is one year from award of a contract, to coincide with the five-year adoption date of the 2023 hazard mitigation plan update. The Director (or his designee) will be responsible for the plan update. Before the end of the five-year period, the updated plan will be submitted to FEMA for approval. When concurrence is received that the updated plan complies with FEMA requirements, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, the City of Shelton Council, and the Special Purpose District Commissioners for adoption. The County will send an e-mail to individuals and organizations on the stakeholder list to inform them that the updated plan is available on the County website. 14.2 IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS Mason County will have the opportunity to implement hazard mitigation projects through existing programs and procedures through plan revisions or amendments. The hazard mitigation plan will be incorporated into the plans, regulations and ordinances as they are updated in the future or when new plans are developed. The County’s Comprehensive Plan and the comprehensive plans of the planning partners are considered to be integral parts of this plan. The County and the City of Shelton, through adoption of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The plan development process provided the County and the City with the opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their comprehensive plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the Mason County. An update to a comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. All planning partners are committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual comprehensive and other plans, including emergency management response plans. In some instances, this may be accomplished by identifying a mitigation initiative to do so and giving Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Plan Maintenance Bridgeview Consulting 14-4 September 2023 that initiative a high priority. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following: • Partners’ emergency response plans • Capital improvement programs • Municipal codes • Building codes • Critical areas regulation • Growth management • Water resource inventory area planning • Basin planning • Community design guidelines • Water-efficient landscape design guidelines • Stormwater management programs • Water system vulnerability assessments • Master fire protection plans • Coastal Zone Atlas information • Landslide reports and planning • Evacuation planning • Transportation planning Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process. 14.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Mason County is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of the hazard mitigation plan. The public will continue to be apprised of the plan’s progress through the Mason County website and the annual progress reports that will be provided to the media. All planning partners have agreed to provide links to the County hazard mitigation plan website on their websites to increase avenues of public access to the plan. The Mason County Division of Emergency Management has agreed to maintain the hazard mitigation plan website. This site will not only house the final plan, it will become the one-stop shop for information regarding the plan, the partnership and plan implementation. Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the planning partnership at the time of the update. At a minimum, this strategy will include the use of social media and local media outlets within the planning area. Bridgeview Consulting R-1 September 2023 REFERENCES Central Washington University Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array (PANGA). 2023. PANGA website accessed online at http://www.panga.org Climate Impacts Group. 2023. Climate Impacts Group website. Accessed online at http://cses.washington.edu/cig/res/res.shtml CoreLogic. 2015. Lightning Risk Score. Accessed online at http://www.corelogic.com/downloadable-docs/1_lightning-risk-score_1308_01-screen.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Disaster Declaration Summary – Open Government Dataset. Spreadsheet Data: Disaster Declarations for States and Counties | FEMA.gov Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2013). Mitigation Ideas. A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Insurance Program. “Flood Insurance Study for Mason County.” (2017, 2019) Keuler, R.F. 1988. Coastal erosion, sediment supply, and longshore transport in the Port Townsend 30-by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington. U.S. Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Investigations. Mason County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (2011). Accessed 2 June 2017. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/mycomments/MasonCounty/InvChrCh3.p df National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report OAR CPO-1. (2012). Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2023). National Climatic Data Center website. Search | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) (noaa.gov) Noson, Linda Lawrance, Anthony Qamar and Gerald Thornsen. (1988) Washington State Earthquake Hazards. Washington State Department of Natural Resources -Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular. Accessed 30 March 2017. Available on line at: http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ic85_earthquake_hazards_wa.pdf Olympic Rain Shadow. 2015. Olympic Rain Shadow Information and Resources website. Accessed online at http://www.olympicrainshadow.com/olympicrainshadowmap.html Oregon Climate Service. 2023. Oregon Climate Service Storm King website. Accessed online at Oregon Climate Service (oregonstate.edu) Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). 2015. Cascadia Historic Earthquake Catalog, 1793- 1929 Covering Washington, Oregon and Southern British Columbia. Accessed online at http://assets.pnsn.org/CASCAT2006/Index_152_216.html Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update References Bridgeview Consulting R-2 September 2023 Schlenger, et al. 2010. As cited in Clallam County SMP ESA (2011). http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/assets/applets/Ch3MarineClCoSMP-draftICR6-11.pdf Schuster, R. L. and Highland, L. (2001). Socioeconmic and Environmental Impacts of Landslides in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, Open File Report 01-0276. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0276/ Schuster, R.L., Nieto, A.S., O’Rourke, T.D., Crespo, E. and Plaza-Nieto, G. (1996) Mass wasting triggered by the 5 March 1987 Ecuador earthquakes, Engrg. Geol., Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 1-23. Sarikhan, Isabelle Y.; Walsh, Timothy J.; Cakir, Recep, 2007, Morphology of the Alderwood landslide- -A probable origin for tsunami in Lynch Cove, Puget Sound, Washington [abstract]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 39, no. 4, p. 31. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS). Maintained by the Arizona State University Center for Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States | Center for Emergency Management and Homeland Security (asu.edu) Spiker, E.C. and Gori, P.L., 2000, National landslide hazards mitigation strategy – A framework for loss reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-450, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Spiker, E.C. and Gori, P.L., 2003, National landslide hazards mitigation strategy – A framework for loss reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1244, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2015. Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Skokomish River Basin, Mason County, WA Ecosystem Restoration. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2023). Washington D.C. U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. State and County QuickFacts. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Mason County, Washington; Washington U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. American Community Survey. Accessed various dates (2023): http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t U.S. Census. 2023. Factfinder Data. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023 Census of Agriculture; Washington Highlights. Prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Pacific Coast. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-178/pages/cvi.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. Accessed January 2023 from USGS web site: http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. University of Washington Earth & Space Science (ESS). 2023. ESS Website accessed online at http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/ USGS. 2009. U.S. Geological Survey. http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wgmt/pacnw/lifeline/eqhazards.html Vaisala. Lightning Fatalities by State and Lightning Fatalities Weighted by Population by State. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update References Bridgeview Consulting R-3 September 2023 Walsh, Timothy J.; Logan, Robert L., 2007, Field data for a trench on the Canyon River fault, southeast Olympic Mountains, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2007-1, 1 plate. Washington Department of Agriculture. 2012. Agriculture-A Cornerstone of Washington’s Economy. Available at: http://agr.wa.gov/AgInWa/docs/126-CropProductionMap11-11.pdf Washington Department of Commerce. 2015. Climate Change Adaptation web page. Accessed online at http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Services/localgovernment/GrowthManagement/Growth- Management-Planning-Topics/Climate-Change-and-Energy/Pages/Climate-Change- Adaptation.aspx Washington State Department of Commerce (2023). Choose Washington. Accessed 23 Jan 2023. Available online at: Mason County, Washington - Information & Data for Site Selectors (choosewashingtonstate.com) Washington Department of Ecology, Inventory of Dams in the State of WA. Washington Department of Ecology. (2007). Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1-3, 2007, in Western Washington, by I. Y. Sarikhan, K. D. Stanton, T. A. Contreras, Michael Polenz, Jack Powell, T. J. Walsh, and R. L. Logan. Washington Department of Ecology, 1980, Coastal zone atlas of Washington; volume 9, Mason County: Washington Department of Ecology, 1 v., maps, scale 1:24,000. Washington Department of Ecology. (2014). Landslide Hazard. Data available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/landslides/about/deep.html Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD). Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, 2013, 2018. Washington Employment Security Department (ESD). 2023. Local Unemployment Statistics. Olympia, WA. Available: ESDWAGOV - Mason County profile. Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). 2023. http://ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/default.asp Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (WSDAHP). 2015. Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm ravages Western Washington on December 14 and 15, 2006. HistoryLink File #8402. Accessed online at http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/pf_output.cfm?file_id=8042 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2010. WSDOT’s Unstable Slope Management Program Brochure. Accessed online at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7D456546-705F-4591-AC5B- 7E0D87D15543/78408/UnstableSlopeFinaFolioWEBSMALL.pdf Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2023. Unstable Slopes. Search | WSDOT (wa.gov) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2011. Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment. Available online at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC- BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWAFinal.pdf Wikimedia.org. 2015. Rain Shadow illustration. Accessed online at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rainshadow_copy.jpg Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update References Bridgeview Consulting R-4 September 2023 Witter, R. C.; Zhang, Yinglong; Wang, Kelin; Priest, G. R.; Goldfinger, Chris; Stimely, L. L.; English, J.T.; Ferro, P. A., 2011, Simulating tsunami inundation at Bandon, Coos County, Oregon, using hypothetical Cascadia and Alaska earthquake scenarios: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special Paper 43, 57 p. Wood, Nathan and Christopher Soulard. 2008. Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards on the Open-Ocean and Strait of Juan de Fuca Coasts of Washington (p. 2). Zhang, K., Douglas, B. C., and Leatherman, S. P. 1997. East coast storm surges provide unique climate record; Eos, vol. 78, no. 37, p. 389ff. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Bridgeview Consulting A-1 September 2023 APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ACRONYMS ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BOR—U.S. Bureau of Reclamation BRIC- Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities CFR—Code of Federal Regulations cfs—cubic feet per second CIP—Capital Improvement Plan CRS—Community Rating System DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps DHS—Department of Homeland Security DMA —Disaster Mitigation Act DSO—Dam Safety Office EAP—Emergency Action Plan EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA—Endangered Species Act FCAAP—Flood Control Assistance Account Program FCMP—Flood Control Maintenance Program FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS—Flood Insurance Study GIS—Geographic Information System GMA—Growth Management Act Hazus-MH—Hazards, United States-Multi Hazard HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Grant Program IBC—International Building Code IRC—International Residential Code MM—Modified Mercalli Scale NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program NFPA—National Fire Protection Association NFR—Natural fire rotation NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS—National Weather Service PDM—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program PDI—Palmer Drought Index PGA—Peak Ground Acceleration PHDI—Palmer Hydrological Drought Index RCW—Revised Code of Washington Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-2 September 2023 SCS—U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service SFHA—Special Flood Hazard Area SHELDUS—Special Hazard Events and Losses Database for the US SPI—Standardized Precipitation Index USGS—U.S. Geological Survey WAC—Washington Administrative Code WDFW—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WUI— Wildland Urban Interface DEFINITIONS 100-Year Flood: The term “100-year flood” can be misleading. The 100-year flood does not necessarily occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines it as the 1 percent annual chance flood, which is now the standard definition used by most federal and state agencies and by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Acre-Foot: An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. This measure is used to describe the quantity of storage in a water reservoir. An acre-foot is a unit of volume. One acre foot equals 7,758 barrels; 325,829 gallons; or 43,560 cubic feet. An average household of four will use approximately 1 acre-foot of water per year. Asset: An asset is any constructed or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to, people; buildings; infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems; lifelines, such as electricity and communication resources; and environmental, cultural, or recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and landmarks. Base Flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the “100-year” or “1% chance” flood. The base flood is a statistical concept used to ensure that all properties subject to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are protected to the same degree against flooding. Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water—whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs, or other sources—flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains, and ridges. Basins are also referred to as “watersheds” and “drainage basins.” Benefit: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are limited to specific, measurable, risk reduction factors, including reduction in expected property losses (buildings, contents, and functions) and protection of human life. Benefit/Cost Analysis: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic, quantitative method of comparing projected benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness. Building: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which the wheels and axles carry no weight. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-3 September 2023 Capability Assessment: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a community’s current capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an inventory of an agency’s mission, programs, and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a community’s actions to reduce losses are identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The following capabilities were reviewed under this assessment: • Legal and regulatory capability • Administrative and technical capability • Fiscal capability Community Rating System (CRS): The CRS is a voluntary program under the NFIP that rewards participating communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP and completing activities that reduce flood hazard risk by providing flood insurance premium discounts. Critical Area: An area defined by state or local regulations as deserving special protection because of unique natural features or its value as habitat for a wide range of species of flora and fauna. A sensitive/critical area is usually subject to more restrictive development regulations. Critical Facility: Facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population. These become especially important after any hazard event occurs. For the purposes of this plan, critical facilities include: • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water reactive materials; • Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a hazard event. • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events, and • Public and private utilities, facilities and infrastructure that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to areas damaged by hazard events. • Government facilities. Cubic Feet per Second (cfs): Discharge or river flow is commonly measured in cfs. One cubic foot is about 7.5 gallons of liquid. Dam: Any artificial barrier or controlling mechanism that can or does impound 10 acre-feet or more of water. Dam Failure: Dam failure refers to a partial or complete breach in a dam (or levee) that impacts its integrity. Dam failures occur for a number of reasons, such as flash flooding, inadequate spillway size, mechanical failure of valves or other equipment, freezing and thawing cycles, earthquakes, and intentional destruction. Debris Avalanche: Volcanoes are prone to debris and mountain rock avalanches that can approach speeds of 100 mph. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-4 September 2023 Debris Flow: Dense mixtures of water-saturated debris that move down-valley; looking and behaving much like flowing concrete. They form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become unstable, and move down slope. The source of water varies but inc ludes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst floods. Debris Slide: Debris slides consist of unconsolidated rock or soil that has moved rapidly down slope. They occur on slopes greater than 65 percent. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA); The DMA is Public Law 106-390 and is the latest federal legislation enacted to encourage and promote proactive, pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. Under the DMA, a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster hazard mitigation grant program (HMGP) were established. Drainage Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water- whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs or other sources- flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Drainage basins are also referred to as watersheds or basins. Drought: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next. Drought can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group, or environmental function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. A socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well-being, and quality of life or starts to have an adverse impact on a region. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere. Earthquake: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and sudden stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties may result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake, damage, or demolish buildings and other structures. Exposure: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the occurrence of a specific hazard. Extent: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard. Fire Behavior: Fire behavior refers to the physical characteristics of a fire and is a function of the interaction between the fuel characteristics (such as type of vegetation and structures that could burn), topography, and weather. Variables that affect fire behavior include the rate of spread, intensity, fuel consumption, and fire type (such as underbrush versus crown fire). Fire Frequency: Fire frequency is the broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. An estimate of the areas most likely to burn is based on past fire history or fire rotation in the area, fuel conditions, weather, ignition sources (such as human or lightning), fire suppression response, and other factors. Flash Flood: A flash flood occurs with little or no warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-5 September 2023 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): FIRMs are the official maps on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Flood Insurance Study: A report published by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for a community in conjunction with the community’s Flood Insurance rate Map. The study contains such background data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the FIRM. In most cases, a community FIRM with detailed mapping will have a corresponding flood insurance study. Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source. A flood insurance rate map identifies most, but not necessarily all, of a community’s floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Floodway: Floodways are areas within a floodplain that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood discharge without increasing the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no development is allowed in floodways, as any structures located there would block the flow of floodwaters. Floodway Fringe: Floodway fringe areas are located in the floodplain but outside of the floodway. Some development is generally allowed in these areas, with a variety of restrictions. On maps that have identified and delineated a floodway, this would be the area beyond the floodway boundary that can be subject to different regulations. Fog: Fog refers to a cloud (or condensed water droplets) near the ground. Fog forms when air close to the ground can no longer hold all the moisture it contains. Fog occurs either when air is cooled to its dew point or the amount of moisture in the air increases. Heavy fog is particularly hazardous because it can restrict surface visibility. Severe fog incidents can close roads, cause vehicle accidents, cause airport delays, and impair the effectiveness of emergency response. Financial losses associated with transportation delays caused by fog have not been calculated in the United States but are known to be substantial. Freeboard: Freeboard is the margin of safety added to the base flood elevation. Frequency: For the purposes of this plan, frequency refers to how often a hazard of specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent is expected to occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100- year frequency is expected to occur about once every 100 years on average and has a 1 percent chance of occurring any given year. Frequency reliability varies depending on the type of hazard considered. Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Tornado wind speeds are sometimes estimated on the basis of wind speed and damage sustained using the Fujita Scale. The scale rates the intensity or severity of tornado events using numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage. An F0 tornado (wind speed less than 73 miles per hour (mph)) indicates minimal damage (such as broken tree limbs), and an F5 tornado (wind speeds of 261 to 318 mph) indicates severe damage. Goal: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based, long-term, policy-type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is trying to achieve. The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have been met (that is, by the actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation). Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-6 September 2023 Hazard: A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition that could harm people and/or cause property damage. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (Hazus-MH) Loss Estimation Program: Hazus-MH is a GIS-based program used to support the development of risk assessments as required under the DMA. The Hazus-MH software program assesses risk in a quantitative manner to estimate damages and losses associated with natural hazards. Hazus-MH is FEMA’s nationally applicable, standardized methodology and software program and contains modules for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and wind hazards. Hazus-MH has also been used to assess vulnerability (exposure) for other hazards. Hydraulics: Hydraulics is the branch of science or engineering that addresses fluids (especially water) in motion in rivers or canals, works and machinery for conducting or raising water, the use of water as a prime mover, and other fluid-related areas. Hydrology: Hydrology is the analysis of waters of the earth. For example, a flood discharge estimate is developed by conducting a hydrologic study. Intensity: For the purposes of this plan, intensity refers to the measure of the effects of a hazard. Inventory: The assets identified in a study region comprise an inventory. Inventories include assets that could be lost when a disaster occurs and community resources are at risk. Assets include people, buildings, transportation, and other valued community resources. Landslide: Landslides can be described as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Fundamentally, slope failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope exceeds the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. Lightning: Lightning is an electrical discharge resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a “bolt,” usually within or between clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000ºF. The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by lightning each year (see http://www.fema.gov/hazard/thunderstorms/thunder.shtm). Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and flow horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids when liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy, and generally results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety. Local Government: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-7 September 2023 tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. Magnitude: Magnitude is the measure of the strength of an earthquake, and is typically measured by the Richter scale. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount ass ociated with the preceding whole number value. Mass movement: A collective term for landslides, mudflows, debris flows, sinkholes and lahars. Mitigation: A preventive action that can be taken in advance of an event that will reduce or eliminate the risk to life or property. Mitigation Actions: Mitigation actions are specific actions to achieve goals and objectives that minimize the effects from a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property. Objective: For the purposes of this plan, an objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when combined with other objectives, forms a strategy or course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable. Peak Ground Acceleration: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the highest amplitude of ground shaking that accompanies an earthquake, based on a percentage of the force of gravity. Preparedness: Preparedness refers to actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens, and communities to respond to disasters. Presidential Disaster Declaration: These declarations are typically made for events that cause more damage than state and local governments and resources can handle without federal government assistance. Generally, no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for such declarations. A Presidential Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, designed to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Probability of Occurrence: The probability of occurrence is a statistical measure or estimate of the likelihood that a hazard will occur. This probability is generally based on past hazard events in the area and a forecast of events that could occur in the future. A probability factor based on yearly values of occurrence is used to estimate probability of occurrence. Repetitive Loss Property: Any NFIP-insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any changes of ownership during that period, has experienced: • Four or more paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00; or • Two paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00 within any 10-year period since 1978 or • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Return Period (or Mean Return Period): This term refers to the average period of time in years between occurrences of a particular hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of occurrence). Riverine: Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. Floodway maps can only be prepared for riverine floodplains. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-8 September 2023 Risk: Risk is the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community. Risk measures the likelihood of a hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a specific type of hazard. Risk also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard. Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is the process of measuring potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to hazards and focuses on (1) hazard identification; (2) impacts of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets; (3) vulnerability identification; and (4) estimates of the cost of damage or costs that could be avoided through mitigation. Risk Ranking: This ranking serves two purposes, first to describe the probability that a hazard will occur, and second to describe the impact a hazard will have on people, property, and the economy. Risk estimates for the County are based on the methodology that the County used to prepare the risk assessment for this plan. The following equation shows the risk ranking calculation: Risk Ranking = Probability + Impact (people + property + economy) Robert T. Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-107, was signed into law on November 23, 1988. This law amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs. Sinkhole: A collapse depression in the ground with no visible outlet. Its drainage is subterranean. It is commonly vertical-sided or funnel-shaped. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): The base floodplain delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The SFHA is mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations and Zone V in coastal situations. The SFHA may or may not encompass all of a community’s flood problems Stakeholder: Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, managers of critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could impact hazard mitigation. Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion is common along rivers, streams and drains where banks have been eroded, sloughed or undercut. However, it is important to remember that a stream is a dynamic and constantly changing system. It is natural for a stream to want to meander, so not all eroding banks are “bad” and in need of repair. Generally, stream bank erosion becomes a problem where development has limited the meandering nature of streams, where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank structures (like bridges, culverts, etc.) are located in places where they can actually cause damage to downstream areas. Stabilizing these areas can help protect watercourses from continued sedimentation, damage to adjacent land uses, control unwanted meander, and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife. Steep Slope: Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being applied to, but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25%. For this study, steep slope is defined as slopes greater than 33%. Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Acronyms and Definitions Bridgeview Consulting A-9 September 2023 Sustainable Hazard Mitigation: This concept includes the sound management of natural resources, local economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. Thunderstorm: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds. Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associat ed with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during the wet or dry seasons. Tornado: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud and the surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado’s vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Vulnerability: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power. Flooding of an electric substation would affect not only the substation itself but businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. Watershed: A watershed is an area that drains down gradient from areas of higher land to areas of lower land to the lowest point, a common drainage basin. Wildfire: These terms refer to any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. The potential for wildfire is influenced by three factors: the presence of fuel, topography, and air mass. Fuel can include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and in the air such as tree canopies. Topography includes both slope and elevation. Air mass includes temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount, duration, and the stability of the atmosphere at the time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most frequently, by human activity including smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. Windstorm: Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts exceeding 50 mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly constructed buildings, mobile homes (manufactured housing units), major infrastructure, and aboveground utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees and power lines; cause damage to residential, commercial, critical facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake. Zoning Ordinance: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update APPENDIX B FEMA APPROVAL LETTER Bridgeview Consulting B-1 September 2023 APPENDIX B FEMA PLAN APPROVAL LETTER Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update APPENDIX C EXAMPLE TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE PROGRESS REPORTS Bridgeview Consulting C-1 September 2023 APPENDIX C EXAMPLE TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE PROGRESS REPORTS Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Annual Progress Report Reporting Period: (Insert reporting period) Background: Mason County and participating cities and special purpose districts in the county developed a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risk from all hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. To prepare the plan, the participating partners organized resources, assessed risks from natural hazards within the county, developed planning goals and objectives, reviewed mitigation alternatives, and developed an action plan to address probable impacts from natural hazards. By completing this process, these jurisdictions maintained compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act, achieving eligibility for mitigation grant funding opportunities afforded under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The plan can be viewed on-line at: Insert web address Summary Overview of the Plan’s Progress: The performance period for the hazard mitigation plan became effective on ____, 2023, with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The initial performance period for this plan will be 5 years, with an anticipated update to the plan to occur before ______, 2028. As of this reporting period, the performance period for this plan is considered to be __ percent complete. The hazard mitigation plan has targeted __ hazard mitigation initiatives to be pursued during the 5-year performance period. As of the reporting period, the following overall progress can be reported: • __ out of __ initiatives (__%) reported ongoing action toward completion. • __ out of __ initiatives (__%) were reported as being complete. • __ out of __ initiatives (___%) reported no action taken. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action plan identified in the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the hazard mitigation plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities of the partner jurisdictions. This report discusses the following: • Natural hazard events that have occurred within the last year • Changes in risk exposure within the planning area (all of Mason County) • Mitigation success stories • Review of the action plan • Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Example Template for Future Progress Reports Bridgeview Consulting C-2 September 2023 • Recommendations for changes/enhancement. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team: The Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team, made up of planning partners and stakeholders within the planning area, reviewed and approved this progress report at its annual meeting held on _____, 2024. It was determined through the plan’s development process that a planning team would remain in service to oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the planning team will provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress report. It is anticipated that there will be turnover in the membership annually, which will be documented in the progress reports. For this reporting period, the planning team membership is as indicated in Table 1. TABLE 1 PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS Name Title Jurisdiction/Agency Natural Hazard Events within the Planning Area: During the reporting period, there were __ natural hazard events in the planning area that had a measurable impact on people or property. A summary of these events is as follows: • __________________________ • __________________________ Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area: (Insert brief overview of any natural hazard event in the planning area that changed the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the hazards addressed in the hazard mitigation plan) Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Example Template for Future Progress Reports Bridgeview Consulting C-3 September 2023 Mitigation Success Stories: (Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the reporting period) Review of the Action Plan: Table 2 reviews the action plan, reporting the status of each initiative. Reviewers of this report should refer to the hazard mitigation plan for more detailed descriptions of each initiative and the prioritization process. Address the following in the “status” column of the following table: • Was any element of the initiative carried out during the reporting period? • If no action was completed, why? • Is the timeline for implementation for the initiative still appropriate? • If the initiative was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan? TABLE 2 ACTION PLAN MATRIX Action Taken? (Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status Status (X, O,✓) Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Initiative #__—______________________[description] Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update Example Template for Future Progress Reports Bridgeview Consulting C-4 September 2023 TABLE 2 ACTION PLAN MATRIX Action Taken? (Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status Status (X, O,✓) Completion status legend: ✓= Project Completed O = Action ongoing toward completion X = No progress at this time Changes That May Impact Implementation of the Plan: (Insert brief overview of any significant changes in the planning area that would have a profound impact on the implementation of the plan. Specify any changes in technical, regulatory and financial capabilities identified during the plan’s development) Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements: Based on the review of this report by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team, the following recommendations will be noted for future updates or revisions to the plan: • __________________________ • __________________________ • __________________________ • __________________________ • __________________________ Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the governing boards of all planning partners and to local media outlets and the report is posted on the Mason County hazard mitigation plan website. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to: MASON COUNTY 2023 MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES Bridgeview Consulting, LLC. 915 N. Laurel Lane | Tacoma, WA 98406 | 253.301.1330 SEPTEMBER 2023 MASON COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION 2023 HAZARD MITIGATONI PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES SEPTEMBER 2023 : Mason County Department of Emergency Management 100 Public Works Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Prepared by: Bridgeview Consulting LLC 915 No. Laurel Lane Tacoma, WA 98406 (253) 301-1330 i Mason County 2023 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Planning Partner Participation ............................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 The Planning Partnership ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Annex-Preparation Process ..................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Final Coverage Under the Plan ............................................................................................................................... 1-7 Chapter 2. City of Shelton Annex .........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Community Profile ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.7 Regulatory Capability ................................................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.7.1 Administrative and Technical Capability ....................................................................................... 2-9 2.7.2 Fiscal Capability ...................................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.7.3 Community Classifications ................................................................................................................. 2-12 2.8 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking ............................................................................................................ 2-13 2.9 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.11 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 2-16 2.12 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives .................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.13 Hazard Maps .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-18 Chapter 3. Public Utility District No. 3 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Annex Update .........3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.5 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1 Regulatory Capability ............................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities .................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.3 Fiscal Capability ...................................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.6 Community Classification ....................................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking ............................................................................................................ 3-11 3.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 3-16 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes ii 3.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives .................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.12 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability ........................................................................ 3-20 Chapter 4. Mason County Public Utility District No. 1 2023 Annex Update ......................4-1 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ............................................................ 4-1 4.2 District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.1 Regulatory Capability ............................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities .................................................................................... 4-6 4.4.3 Fiscal Capability ........................................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.5 Community Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................................. 4-9 4.7 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.9 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 4-13 4.10 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives .................................................................................................................... 4-14 Chapter 5. Central Mason Fire & EMS Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Annex Update ........5-1 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans ......................................................................................................................... 5-7 5.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities .................................................................................... 5-8 5.5.2 Fiscal Capability ........................................................................................................................................ 5-9 5.6 Community Classification ....................................................................................................................................... 5-10 5.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking ............................................................................................................ 5-10 5.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 5-14 5.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives .................................................................................................................... 5-15 5.12 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability ........................................................................ 5-15 Chapter 6. Mason County Fire District #16 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Annex Update ..6-1 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ................................................................................. 6-1 6.3 District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 6-3 6.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans ......................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities .................................................................................... 6-5 6.5.2 Fiscal Capability ........................................................................................................................................ 6-7 6.6 Community Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................................. 6-8 6.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6-10 6.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 6-10 6.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 6-12 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 6.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives .................................................................................................................... 6-13 6.12 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability ........................................................................ 6-13 Chapter 7. Mason County Fire District #4 Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex .........................7-1 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ................................................................................. 7-1 7.3 District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 Hazard Event History ................................................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans ......................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities .................................................................................... 7-6 7.5.2 Fiscal Capability ........................................................................................................................................ 7-8 7.6 Community Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 7-8 7.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................................. 7-9 7.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 7-10 7.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 7-10 7.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 7-12 Appendices A. Procedures for Linking to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Bridgeview Consulting 1-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard mitigation. Such planning efforts require all participating jurisdictions to fully participate in the process and formally adopt the resulting planning document. Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) states: Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan. (Section 201.6.a(4)) In the preparation of the 2023 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a Planning Partnership was formed to leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) for as many eligible local governments in Mason County as possible. The DMA defines a local government as follows: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. There are two types of Planning Partners in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities: • Incorporated municipalities (cities and towns) • Special purpose districts (e.g., fire, hospital, school, water) • For purposes of this update, the County elected to utilize the base plan as its document, with specific county data identified within the various tables within Volume 1. 1.2 THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP INITIAL SOLICITATION AND LETTERS OF INTENT The planning team solicited the participation of the County and recognized special purpose districts at the outset of this project. Initial letters and emails were sent out in March 2022 to identify potential stakeholders for this process. The purpose of the letter was to introduce the planning process to jurisdictions in the County that could have a stake in the outcome of the planning effort, as well as to invite participation in the effort. The planning process kickoff meeting was held on December 13, 2022 to solicit planning partners and inform potential partners of the benefits of participation in this effort. County-identified eligible local governments within the planning area were invited to attend; a press release of the meeting Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 1-2 September 2023 was also published. Various agencies and citizen stakeholders were also invited to this meeting. The goals of the meeting were as follows: • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Provide an update on the planning grant. • Outline the Mason County plan update work plan. • Describe the benefits of multi-jurisdictional planning. • Solicit planning partners. • Confirm a Planning Committee. All interested local governments were provided with a list of planning partner expectations developed by the planning team and were informed of the obligations required for participation. Local governments wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a “notice of intent to participate” that agreed to the planning partner expectations and designated a point of contact for their jurisdiction. In all, formal commitment was received from seven planning partners by the planning team, and the Mason County Planning Partnership was formed. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS The Planning Team previously developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were confirmed at the December 2022 kick-off meeting: • Each partner will provide a “Letter of Intent to Participate.” • Each partner will support and participate in the development of the update by providing requested information. Support includes this body making decisions regarding plan development and scope on behalf of the partnership. • Each partner will provide support for the public involvement strategy developed by the Planning Team in the form of mailing lists, possible meeting space, and media outreach such as newsletters, newspapers or direct-mailed brochures. • Each partner will participate in plan update development activities such as: – Planning Team meetings – Public meetings or open houses – Workshops and planning partner sessions – Public review and comment periods prior to adoption. Attendance will be tracked at such activities, and attendance records will be used to track and document participation for each planning partner. A minimum level of participation was established. • Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans, and ordinances specific to hazards identified within the planning area to determine the existence of plans, studies or ordinances not consistent with the equivalent documents reviewed in preparation of the County plan. For example: if a planning partner PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION Bridgeview Consulting 1-3 September 2023 has a floodplain management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent with any of the County’s basin plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation into the plan for the partner’s area. • Each partner will be expected to review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. County or contract resources will provide jurisdiction-specific mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task if unavailable by the local jurisdiction, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner. • Each partner will be expected to review the mitigation recommendations chosen for the overall county and determine if they will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent with the overall plan recommendations will need to be identified, prioritized and reviewed to determine their benefits and costs. • Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur. • Each partner will be required to sponsor or take part in at least one public meeting to present the draft plan at least two weeks prior to adoption (various ways in which this may be met). • Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan. It should be noted that by adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped from the partnership by the Planning Team, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of this plan. LINKAGE PROCEDURES Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this hazard mitigation plan update may comply with DMA requirements by linking to this plan following the procedures outlined in Appendix A. 1.3 ANNEX-PREPARATION PROCESS TEMPLATES Templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. Since special purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of 44 CFR Section 201.6 would be met, based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation. If templates were not completed in advance, each partner was required to participate in a technical assistance workshop during which key elements of the template were completed by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The templates were set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the DMA-required elements that are specific for each partner. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 1-4 September 2023 WORKSHOP Workshops were held for Planning Partners to learn about the templates and the overall planning process. In addition to the workshops, one-on-one meetings and/or telephone conferences were also held to provide assistance. Topics addressed included the following: • DMA • Mason County plan background • The Annex templates and Instructions • Risk ranking (Calculated Priority Risk Index - CPRI) • Developing an action plan • Cost/benefit review. The sessions provided technical assistance and an overview of the template completion process. Attendance at this workshop was mandatory under the planning partner expectations established by the Planning Team Committee. There was 100-percent attendance of the partnership at these sessions. In the risk-ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to rank each risk specifically for its jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population or facilities. Cities were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special purpose districts were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their constituency, their vital facilities and the facilities ’ functionality after an event. The methodology followed that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1. A principal objective of this exercise was to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk assessment as a tool to support other planning and hazard mitigation processes. Tools utilized during these sessions included the following: • The risk assessment results developed for this plan • Hazard maps for all hazards of concern • Special district boundary maps that illustrated the sphere of influence for each special purpose district partner • Hazard mitigation catalogs • Federal funding and technical assistance catalogs • Copies of partners’ prior annexes, if applicable. • Calculated Priority Risk Ranking Table • Loss Matrices, Critical Facility Exposure and Impact Tables, Comprehensive Data Management System database attribute tables. PRIORITIZATION 44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning team developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that meets the needs of the PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION Bridgeview Consulting 1-5 September 2023 partnership and the requirements of 44 CFR. The actions were prioritized according to the following criteria: • High Priority—Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. • Medium Priority—Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. • Low Priority—Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and timeline for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority because of the uncertainty of a funding source but be changed to high once a funding source has been identified. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through the plan maintenance strategy. BENEFIT/COST REVIEW 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to costs and benefits as follows: • Cost ratings: – High—Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action; implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). – Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years. – Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an existing, ongoing program. • Benefit ratings: – High—The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. – Medium—The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 1-6 September 2023 – Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. It should be noted that for many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA’s various mitigation programs. These programs require detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation. The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Each planning partner reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify each initiative based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows: – Prevention - Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. This includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. – Public Information and Education - Public information campaigns or activities which inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them – a public education or awareness campaign, including efforts such as: real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education, all of which bring awareness of the hazards of concern. – Structural Projects —Efforts taken to secure against acts of terrorism, manmade, or natural disasters. Types of projects include levees, reservoirs, channel improvements, or barricades which stop vehicles from approaching structures to protect. – Property Protection – Actions taken that protect the properties. Types of efforts include: structural retrofit, property acquisition, elevation, relocation, insurance, storm shutters, shatter-resistant glass, sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, etc. Protection can be at the individual homeowner level, or a service provided by police, fire, emergency management, or other public safety entities. – Emergency Services / Response —Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities (e.g., sandbagging). – Natural Resource Protection – Wetlands and floodplain protection, natural and beneficial uses of the floodplain, and best management practices. These include actions that preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION Bridgeview Consulting 1-7 September 2023 – Recovery —Actions that involve the construction or re-construction of structures in such a way as to reduce the impact of a hazard, or that assist in rebuilding or re- establishing a community after a disaster incident. It also includes advance planning to address recovery efforts which will take place after a disaster. Efforts are focused on re-establishing the planning region in such a way as enhance resiliency and reduce impacts to future incidents. Recovery differs from response, which occurs during, or immediately after an incident. Recovery views long-range, sustainable efforts. 1.4 FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN Of the seven committed planning partners, all fully met the participation requirements specified by the Planning Team. All partners attended the workshop, and all subsequently submitted completed templates. Therefore, all jurisdictions are included in this volume and will seek DMA compliance under this plan. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 1-8 September 2023 Table 1-1 Planning Partner Status Jurisdiction Letter of Intent Submitted Attended Workshop? Completed Template? Will Be Covered by This Plan? Mason County Yes Yes Yes Yes City of Shelton Yes Yes Yes Yes Central Mason Fire & EMS Yes Yes Yes Yes Mason County Fire District #16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Mason County Fire District #4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Utility District #1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Utility District #3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Bridgeview Consulting 2-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 2. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Shelton, a participating jurisdiction to the 2023 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, having also been a previous planning partner in the County’s 2018 plan. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the City of Shelton. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. 2.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT The City of Shelton followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the City of Shelton also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Carol Beason, Chief of Police 525 W Cota Shelton, WA 98584 Primary Point of Contact Attended meetings, provided local data to planning partnership; captured necessary information from various departments within the City to complete annex template. Conducted public outreach briefings during City Council meetings, including for risk assessment results and for plan review. Also presented final plan to City for adoption. Chris Kostad, Police Captain 525 W Cota Shelton, WA 98584 Alternate Point of Contact Work with Chief Beason to participate in countywide planning process. Assist with information gathering to provide to planning team. Assist with completion of annex template. Mark Ziegler, Interim City Manager 525 W Cota Shelton, WA 98584 Planning Team Member Provided information on overall annex; assisted in appointing City of Shelton Planning Team Members to serve on committee; provided input into various elements and hazard impact; reviewed all phases of plan development; presented plan to Council and for public outreach. Jay Harris, Director of Public Works 525 W Cota Planning Team Member Provided information on all elements of plan development; conducted review of draft plans; Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-2 September 2023 Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Shelton, WA 98584 reviewed risk assessment data; assisted with public outreach and presentation to City Council. Jae Hill, Community and Economic Development Director 525 W Cota Shelton, WA 98584 Planning Team Member Provided information on overall annex; assisted with Capabilities Assessment; conducted review of document; assisted with Annex development. 2.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:  Date of Incorporation—1890  Current Population and Anticipated Growth—Population for the City of Shelton has continued to expand since completion of the last plan, increasing to 10,763 based on US Census Facts (2021 figures). Housing units have also continued to increase, with certain portions of the City seeing a new residential areas being developed.  Location and Description— The City of Shelton is the westernmost city on Puget Sound, enjoying quiet harbors along pristine shorelines and densely forested hills. The City serves as the county seat for Mason County, Washington. The City is located at 47°12′49″N 123°6′22″W (47.213702, −123.106088). According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 6.09 square miles (15.77 km2), of which 5.76 square miles (14.92 km2) is land and 0.33 square miles (0.85 km2) is water. The City of Shelton is the only city in Mason County. Major roadways in the City include Highway 3 and Railroad Ave running through its boundaries. There are also three highly travelled accesses off Highway 101 which flow into the City. The City is geographically recognized as having three general areas: Hillcrest, Mt. View, and the Downtown area. Most of the City’s retail is transitioning into the Mt. View area. Likewise, Mason General Hospital is also expanding into the Mt. View area as well. The Downtown area continues with small local retail. The City has ~104 employees and provides a wide range of municipal services including City Administration, City Clerk, Community and Economic Development, Finance, Municipal Court, Fire, Police, and Public Works. Also offered are services such as: Water & Sewer, Solid Waste, and Parks & Recreation.  Brief History— Shelton was officially incorporated in 1890. The city was named after David Shelton (pictured right), a delegate to the territorial legislature. Shelton was once served by a small fleet of steamboats, which was part of the Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet. These boats included the Old Settler, Irene, Willie, City of Shelton, Marian, Clara Brown, and S.G. Simpson.  The economy was built around logging, farming, dairying and ranching as well as oyster cultivation. The Simpson Timber CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-3 September 2023 Company mill on Puget Sound's Oakland Bay dominated the landscape of the downtown area; the mill was sold to Sierra Pacific Industries in 2015, who are currently building a new mill. Shelton also identifies itself as the "Christmas Tree Capital."  Climate— Shelton experiences heavy annual precipitation, but experiences a distinct drying trend in summer, in common with much of western Washington. Due to this trend, Shelton's climate is classified as a warm-summer climate classification system. Temperatures year- round are relatively mild, with few days of extreme highs in summer and extreme lows in winter.  Governing Body Format —- Shelton was the last city in the state of Washington to utilize the Mayor/Commission form of government. A recent November 2017 election now changes government to a seven-member City Council with City Manager form of government.  Development Trends - With the closure and sale of Simpson Timber and Sierra Pacific purchase we will have the largest lumber stud mill on the west coast. Now fully operational with Sierra Pacific’s fabrication facility also located on site. In addition, a new water system now provides the needed water to the Mt. View area and out to the WSP academy on Hwy 102. Mason General Hospital, now Mason Health, completed a large expansion to put all of their medical clinics in one central location, including a three-story medical complex on the current footprint. Solidifying Mason Health as a regional healthcare provider and critical community service provider.  Economy – The City of Shelton economic base consists of Forest Products, Medical Services, and Education (e.g., retail sales and services; recreational and healthcare services; agricultural; and light manufacturing. The largest employers include Sierra Pacific Lum ber Manufacture, Mason General Hospital, and Shelton School District. 2.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that are unique to the jurisdiction or there are hazards which are unique to the jurisdiction as follows. Table 2-1 lists all past occurrences of hazard events within the jurisdiction. If available, dollar loss data is also included. Table 2-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 Minimal for City facilities or operations. Unknown for overall community. Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20-1/16/21 Minimal for City facilities or operations. Unknown for overall community. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-4 September 2023 Table 2-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Storm 4539 1/20/-2/10/2020 Minimal for City facilities or operations. Unknown for overall community. Pandemic 4481 1/20/20 – Present Unknown Severe Storm 4418 12/10-24/2018 Unknown Flood 4253 12/1/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4269 11/12/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4056 1/14/2012 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008 Unknown Flood 1817 1/6/2009 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1734 12/1/2007 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1682 12/14/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1641 1/27/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1499 10/15/2003 Unknown Earthquake 1361 2/28/2001 Unknown Flood 1172 3/18/1997 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1159 12/26/1996 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1079 11/7/1995 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 981 1/20/1993 Unknown Flood 883 11/9/1990 Unknown Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown Flood 612 12/31/1979 Unknown Flood 492 12/13/1975 Unknown Flood 414 1/25/1974 Unknown CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-5 September 2023 Table 2-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Earthquake 196 5/11/1965 Unknown Flood 185 12/29/1964 Unknown Jurisdiction Specific Incidents Not Rising to Level of Disaster Declaration Wildfire by PUD 3 Headquarters - 240 Acres burned 10/2014 Unknown Damages 2.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction’s capabilities with respect to preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events and incidents. Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs. 2.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The City of Shelton maintains active participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and implements the NFIP regulations through Chapter 18.07 of the Shelton Municipal Code. Within Section 18.07.050 SMC there are definitions for “substantial damage” and “substantial improvement” as follows: Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-6 September 2023 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2. Any alteration of a “historic structure”; provided, that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” Elsewhere in that same Chapter, the requirements of the Chapter—including development permits, elevation certificates, floodproofing, elevation above base flood elevation, structure anchoring, and so on—are applied to all new construction and buildings undergoing substantial improvements, including those damaged as a result of flood events. The City maintains building officials that regularly inspect and enforce all building codes and construction regulations to ensure compliance with the established municipal codes. Information on the community’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 2-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction’s involvement with the NFIP. Data for this section was compiled from FEMA websites and State of Washington, Emergency Management Division. • Current Policies in Force (as of 2022): 11 • Total Coverage for Policies in Force: $3,620,000 Repetitive flood loss records are as follows (all are for residential structures): • Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 22 • Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 3 • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been Mitigated: 0 Table 2-2 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? City of Shelton Community Development Department Who is your community’s floodplain administrator? (department/position) City of Shelton Community Development Department – Chief Building Official and Senior Planner Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? No What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? Originally adopted in 1992 and amended in 2006 and 2013 and 2022. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-7 September 2023 Table 2-2 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? 2012 To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. None that we are aware of. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Yes. Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Training regarding methods of achieving compliance in existing (older) structures undergoing significant remodel would be helpful. Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? No. 2.7 REGULATORY CAPABILITY The assessment of the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 2-3. This includes planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are currently in place. Table 2-3 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Version - International Codes Year -2015 Yes Zoning Ordinance Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Floodplain Ordinance Yes Stormwater Management Yes Post Disaster Recovery Unknown Real Estate Disclosure Unknown Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-8 September 2023 Table 2-3 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Growth Management – Yes The City of Shelton operates under the Washington State Growth Management Act. Site Plan Review Yes Public Health and Safety Yes Coastal Zone Management Yes Climate Change Adaptation Yes The state has certain mandates which the City operates under, including mechanisms to reduce the carbon footprint. Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire, etc.) Yes Flood, stormwater, wildfire, critical areas ordinance. Environmental Protection Yes Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Yes (Comp Plan) Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes The City Floodplain Ordinance is enforced, but there is no “plan” per se Stormwater Plan Yes The City of Shelton has stormwater requirements for all development. All new development is reviewed pursuant to the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) Capital Improvement Plan Yes Habitat Conservation Plan – Yes While there is no Conservation Plan directly through the City of Shelton, the City of Shelton does work with the Mason Conservation District for Conservation efforts. Shoreline Management Plan Yes The City of Shelton updated its Shoreline Master Program in 2013. Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Transportation Plan Yes Yes, in the City Comprehensive Plan. Response/Recovery Planning CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-9 September 2023 Table 2-3 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes, through the County, who provides emergency management services to the City. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Yes The City is part of the Region’s THIRA Terrorism Plan Yes Through law enforcement. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No Continuity of Operations Plan No Public Health Plans Yes Through the County. Boards and Commission Planning Commission Yes Mitigation Planning Committee Yes The points of contact for this 2023 update process will remain in force during the lifecycle of this plan. Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems, chipping, etc.)- Yes Through the City of Shelton Public Works Department. Mutual Aid Agreements / Memorandums of Understanding Yes Other 2.7.1 Administrative and Technical Capability The assessment of the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities, educational outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 2-4. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-10 September 2023 Table 2-4 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes City of Shelton Community Development and Public Works and Engineering have planners and engineers as paid staff positions. Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Yes City of Shelton Building and Fire Departments / Building Official and Assistant Fire Chief Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes City of Shelton Engineering Department and, to a degree, the City of Shelton Building Department Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes City of Shelton Community Development and Engineering Departments Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Available on a contractual basis Surveyors Yes Available on a contractual basis Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes City of Shelton Engineering Department Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes City of Shelton Community Development Department, Planning Staff Emergency Manager Yes Police Department / Chief of Police / Contracted services with the County, who provides assistance with planning and emergency response activities as needed, including damage assessment after a disaster incident. Grant writers Yes No official, job specific, grant writers are on staff. Staff write grants as applicable. Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) Yes County public works has signage available for use for warning systems; also, County communications programs support the City as needed for warning and broadcasts. The City also uses a PIO and social media. Hazard data and information available to public Yes Through Mason County Emergency Management and City of Shelton Maintain Elevation Certificates Yes City of Shelton Community Development keeps elevation certificates in specific project files as applicable. Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? No The City is attempting to establish CERT teams throughout the City for this purpose. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-11 September 2023 Table 2-4 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection? Yes Numerous organizations (Mason Conservation District, South Puget Sound Enhancement Group, Squaxin Island Tribe, etc.) are focused on environmental protection in the area. Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Yes The City of Shelton Utility Department has outreach information for responsible water use, the City of Shelton contract Fire Department - Central Mason Fire & EMS, provides outreach for fire safety and household preparedness. Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes Both the City and the County provide public awareness programs on an on-going basis throughout the year as seasonal issues arise, such as flood season, wildfire season, etc. On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes Mason County Noxious Weed Board Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management Yes Mason County Noxious Weed Board Chipper program Yes Through Public Works. The City of Shelton also offers a free Christmas tree chipping program yearly. Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance or cleaning program Yes The City of Shelton stormwater utility provides creek, stream, and culvert/storm drainage maintenance and cleaning. The City also advocates for residents to “adopt a storm drain” during the fall when leaf fall is at its highest level. Stream restoration program Yes The City of Shelton Critical Areas Ordinance requires the restoration and/or maintenance of streams and riparian areas as the City develops. The City of Shelton Community Development Department administers the Critical Areas Ordinance. Erosion or sediment control program Yes The City of Shelton Public Works and Engineering Department has adopted the 2018 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and also has Public Works Standards that apply to any land clearing activity. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-12 September 2023 Table 2-4 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Address signage for property addresses Yes The City of Shelton adheres to the requirements for the International Fire Code for addressing of properties. The City of Shelton Building Department and contract Fire Department administer this code. Other 2.7.2 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 2-5. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Table 2-5 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Other 2.7.3 Community Classifications Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 2-6. Each of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a community. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-13 September 2023 Table 2-6 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Protection Class 5 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Commercial 3 Dwellings 4 Storm Ready Yes - County Firewise Yes Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NA 2.8 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The jurisdiction’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified the hazards that affect the City of Shelton Table 2-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications: □ Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services. □ Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services. □ Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. □ High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services. □ Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 September 2023 Table 2-7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank 1 Severe Weather 3.5 Medium 2 Wildfire 3.1 Low 3 Earthquake 3.6 High 4 Flood 2.9 Low 5 Landslide 2.45 Low 6 Drought 2.2 Extremely Low 7 Climate Change 1.15 Low The hazards as ranked for this 2023 update remain the same as for the 2018 update. While the City has had some new construction occurring within its boundaries, those structures are built to higher codes in place, and must adhere to land use authority with respect to construction in hazard areas, thereby decreasing vulnerability associated with new construction. All measures possible have been taken to help ensure the safety of the citizens. 2.9 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The City of Shelton adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 2.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction’s assets and hazards of concern. Table 2-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the district), potential funding s ources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. (NOTE: City Funds reflect funding available from the City coffers.) CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-15 September 2023 Table 2-8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #1 Create a public education plan that would include classes, publication, and signage to raise the level of knowledge in the community about our current hazards. IE., Wildland fires, Earthquakes, Powerline Awareness. Focus will be on basic all hazard preparedness. New All 1,2,3, 4 City of Shelton Police Dept, Chief or designee $2,000 EMPG, FEMA grants, City Funds Short Term Yes Public Information Local INITIATIVE # 2 Outreach to the local community to create interest in the CERT program New All 1,2,3,4 City of Shelton Police Dept, Chief or designee $1500 SHSP, FEMA HLS, City Funds Short and Long Term Yes Public Information, Response, Emergency Services Local INITIATIVE #3 To work with Red Cross and Local Community to use the Civic Center for short term Shelter . This may include enhancing the facility to ensure appropriate equipment needs are met. New All 1,2,3,4 City of Shelton City Council and Police Dept, Chief or designee $3000 FEMA Grants as available or City Funds Short Term Yes – Modified Emergency Services Local INITIATIVE # 4 Upgrade the Communication System to mirror the MACECOM Communication Center New All 1,2,3,4 City of Shelton Police Dept, Chief or designee $5000 HLS, EMPG, SHSP, City Funds Long Term Yes Emergency Services Local INITIATIVE #5 Seek out grant funding to construct a new public safety structure which incorporates space to be utilized as a shelter or resilience center. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-16 September 2023 Table 2-8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region New All All City of Shelton Police Dept, Chief or designee, City of Shelton Finance Dept. Director $2 Million FEMA, BRIC, HLS, HUD, etc. Long Term No Emergency Services, Recovery, Response Local and County 2.11 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 2-9 identifies the prioritization for each action item. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-17 September 2023 Table 2-9 Mitigation Strategy Priority schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 1 4 H L Y Y Y H 2 All H L Y Y Y H 3 All L L Y Y Y L 4 All H L Y Y Y H 5 All H H Y Y N H a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 2.12 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 2-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. Table 2-10. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l /O n g o i n g N a t u r e Re m o v e d / N o Lo n g e r R e l e v a n t /N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r Public Outreach X X X X X X X Continuing in nature. In conjunction with the County and contracted Fire Dept., the City engages in regular emergency management and public safety efforts which relate to the specific hazards of concern. X X CERT Training X X X X X X X The City works in conjunction with the County and its contract Fire Department to assist with this effort. X X Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-18 September 2023 Table 2-10. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l /O n g o i n g N a t u r e Re m o v e d / N o Lo n g e r R e l e v a n t /N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r Shelter Arrangements X X X X X X X X Upgrade Communications System X X X X X X X The City has applied for grant funds to acquire new communications equipment, but the grant is pending. X 2.13 HAZARD MAPS The following maps illustrate the areas of concern within the City of Shelton. All maps were updated with the most current data with the exception of two maps. In the case of the Coastal Landforms/Feeder Bluff map by Washington Department of Ecology, the State no longer provides this data, and it is therefore considered the best available data for this update. FEMA’s 2017 Risk Map project developed the Ground Shaking Map for the Cascadia M9.0 Earthquake event, which map remains current as no additional Risk Map update has been completed by FEMA. As such, both maps were not replaced, and are a carry-over from the 2018 HMP. CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-19 September 2023 Figure 2-1 City of Shelton Flood Hazard Area Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-20 September 2023 Figure 2-2 Erosion Hazard - Feeder Bluffs CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-21 September 2023 Figure 2-3 Historic Landslide Incidents and Landslide Hazard Areas of Concern Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-22 September 2023 Figure 2-4 Wildfire Exposure CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-23 September 2023 Figure 2-5 Ground Shaking from a Cascadia M9.0 Scenario (FEMA RiskMap 2017) Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 2-24 September 2023 Figure 2-6 Liquefaction Susceptibility within the City of Shelton CITY OF SHELTON ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 2-25 September 2023 Figure 2-7 City of Shelton Earthquake Faults and NEHRP Soils Type Bridgeview Consulting 3-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 3. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 3 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2023 ANNEX UPDATE 3.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the PUD 3, a participating special purpose District to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the PUD 3. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the District, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. 3.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT The Mason County PUD 3 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the PUD 3 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS NAME POSITION/TITLE PLANNING TASKS Stephanie Schuffenhauer, Business Analyst PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 360-432-5240 stephanies@masonpud3.org Primary Point of Contact Identification of historic impact data; capturing of general plan data; identification of assets; Ali Burgess, Safety & Environmental Programs Coordinator PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 360-432-5980 ali.burgess@masonpud3.org Alternate Point of Contact Annex development; assimilation of data; point of contact with County planning team; meeting attendance; Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-2 September 2023 LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS NAME POSITION/TITLE PLANNING TASKS Lynn Eaton, Communications & Government Relations Manager PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 lynne@masonpud3.org Public Relations Public Outreach, meeting attendance; Barbara Adkins PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 barbara.adkins@masonpud3.org Grant Writer Provided input and information to overall plan for PUD 3; attended meetings; assisted with update to critical facilities list; assisted with risk assessment and hazard ranking; conducted various reviews during plan completion. Chris Miller, Operations Manager PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 chrism@masonpud3.org Operations Mutual aid, safety measures and regional prioritization Justin Holzgrove, Director of Engineering & Utility Services PO Box 2148 Shelton, WA 98584 justinh@masonpud3.org Engineering & Telecom Oversight and review 3.3 DISTRICT PROFILE Mason County PUD No. 3 (the District) provides electrical and telecommunication services to customers in Mason, Grays Harbor, and Kitsap Counties (see service territory map below). The District maintains 1,824 miles of electrical lines and 716 miles of telecommunication lines that service 35,525 electrical and 2,642 end-use telecommunications customers as of December 31, 2022. The District maintains 12 substations, an operations center on Johns Prairie Road, a telecommunications data center and office in downtown Shelton and a payment center in Belfair. The annual budget for 2023 was $101.2 million and the District’s net position as of December 31, 2 022, was $113,194,050. As of April 1, 2023, the average kWh cost for residential customers was $0.0816 and the system charge was $1.50/day. The following is a summary of key information about the District: PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-3 September 2023 • Governing Authority— The District is governed by a 3-board member commission and RCW 54. • Population Served—35,525 owner-ratepayers as of December 31, 2022 • Land Area Served—600 sq. miles • Land Area Owned—Approximately 105 acres scattered throughout Mason County. • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment/Facilities—The total book value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the District is $292,210,561 • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— The county anticipates a 15% growth rate in the next ten years. Mason PUD 3 anticipates a similar growth rate. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-4 September 2023 Mason County PUD No. 3 Service Territory Figure 3-1 PUD 3 Service Territory PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-5 September 2023 3.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that are unique to the special purpose District Table 3-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the District. If available, dollar loss data is also included. Table 3-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date/Period Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 $391,638 Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20-1/16/21 $315,613 Severe Storm 4539 1/20/-2/10/2020 $71,163 Severe Winter Storm 4418 12/10-24/2018 $239,695 Flood 4253 12/1/2015 $105,889 Severe Storm 4249 11/12/2015 $282,461 Severe Storm 4056 1/14/2012 $507,646 Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008 $174,207 Flood 1817 1/6/2009 $61, 240 Severe Storm(s) 1734 12/1/2007 $800,706 Severe Storm(s) 1682 12/14/2006 $1,416,245 Severe Storm(s) 1641 1/27/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1499 10/15/2003 Unknown Earthquake 1361 2/28/2001 Unknown Flood 1172 3/18/1997 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1159 12/26/1996 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1079 11/7/1995 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 981 1/20/1993 Unknown Flood 883 11/9/1990 Unknown Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown Flood 612 12/31/1979 Unknown Flood 492 12/13/1975 Unknown Flood 414 1/25/1974 Unknown Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-6 September 2023 Table 3-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date/Period Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Earthquake 196 5/11/1965 Unknown Flood 185 12/29/1964 Unknown Jurisdiction Specific Incidents Not Rising to Level of Disaster Declaration Wildfire by PUD 3 Headquarters - 240 Acres burned 10/2014 Unknown Damages 3.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction’s capabilities with respect to preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events and incidents. Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capabilities assessment is divided into the following sections: regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs. 3.5.1 Regulatory Capability The assessment of the District’s legal and regulatory capabilities, including planning and land management regulations which are customarily used by location jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities, are identified in Table 3-2. Those items applicable to the District are identified. Table 3-2 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code x Washington State Building Code x PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-7 September 2023 Table 3-2 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Zoning Ordinance x Floodplain Ordinance x Stormwater Management x Post Disaster Recovery x Growth Management x Site Plan Review x Public Health and Safety x Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance (steep slope, wildfire, etc.) x Environmental Protection x State Environmental Policy Act x Federal and State Preservation Act x x Endangered Species Act x Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan x Business Continuity Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Capital Improvement Plan x 5-year Capital Plan Habitat Conservation Plan x Avian Protection Plan Economic Development Plan x PUD 3 Part of EDC CEDS List Community Wildfire Protection Plan x Wildfire Prevention Plan & Wildfire Smoke Response Plan Disaster Preparedness x Business Continuity Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan x Business Continuity Plan & Accident Prevention Plan (APP) & Safety Program Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment x Business Continuity Plan Terrorism Plan x Business Continuity Plan & APP Post-Disaster Recovery Plan x Business Continuity Plan Continuity of Operations Plan x Business Continuity Plan Public Health Plans x Pandemic Response Policy Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-8 September 2023 Table 3-2 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Boards and Commission Planning Commission x Board of Commissioners Mitigation Planning Committee x Safety Committees as well as in conjunction with County Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems, chipping, etc.) x Tree Trimming, Infrared, Pole Test & Treat, Substation Testing Mutual Aid Agreements / Memorandums of Understanding x Mutual Aid agreements, Regionally and Nationally Other 3.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the District’s administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 3-3. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Table 3-3 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Engineering Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Yes Engineering Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes Engineering Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Engineering & Safety/Environmental Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Accounting Surveyors No Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes GIS Technician / Mappers PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-9 September 2023 Table 3-3 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use No Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Safety & Environmental Emergency Manager Yes Identified through Business Continuity Grant writers Yes Accounting Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) No Hazard data and information available to public Yes Public Affairs & Safety/Environmental Maintain Elevation Certificates No Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? Yes Engineering, Public Affairs and Safety & Environmental Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection? Yes Energy Expo and School Education Committee Organization focused on individuals with access and functional needs populations Yes Customer Service Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Yes Public Affairs / Safety & Environmental / Education Committee Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes Public Affairs / Education Committee / Safety Demo Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? Yes Public Affairs / Education Committee / Safety Demo Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes Public Affairs / Education Committee / Safety Demo Other On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes Operations: Slashing / Tree Trimming Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management No Fire Safe Councils No Chipper program No Defensible space inspections program No Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-10 September 2023 Table 3-3 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance or cleaning program No Stream restoration program No Erosion or sediment control program Yes Engineering & Safety/Environmental Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Address signage for property addresses No Other No 3.5.3 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3-4. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Table 3-4 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Eligible Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes 3.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The District’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 3-5. Each of the classifications identified establishes requirements which, when met, are known to PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-11 September 2023 increase the resilience of a community. Those which specifically require District participation or enhance mitigation efforts are indicated accordingly. Table 3-5 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Date Enrolled Community Rating System No Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No Storm Ready Yes Countywide Firewise No Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A RP3 – Reliable Public Power Provider designation through the American Public Power Association (APPA) based on reliability, safety, work force development and system improvement. Yes 2013- Current Wildfire Prevention Plan – vegetation management and fire-wrapping poles for prevention Yes 2022 3.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The District’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan and have identified the hazards that affect the PUD 3. Table 3-6 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications:  Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services.  Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services.  Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-12 September 2023  High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services.  Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. Table 3-6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 1 Earthquake 3.40 Extremely High Most of the PUD’s structures fall within the very low to low liquefaction area (over 140), with 17 in the moderate to high liquefaction area, and three in the low to moderate. Some structures identified are masonry (unreinforced and reinforced masonry), steel; pre-cast, and manufactured structure. Many of the PUD’s facilities (both water and power) are older (1954-1969). An earthquake would also impact the district’s ability to provide service and repair lines as disruption in other areas outside of the planning area could impact transmission. In addition, failed roadways would also impact response capabilities for ingress and egress to lines, substations, and water facilities. 2 Severe Weather 3.0 Extremely High All structures, poles, and lines (both water and power) can be impacted by a severe weather event. Impact could include power outages throughout the service area. The PUD has well over 5,000 poles and miles of line along the Olympic National Forest and Hood Canal. The PUD does conduct regular tree-trimming do help reduce the impact; however, power outages will continue to occur due to high wind events, ice forming on the power lines, lightning strikes, etc. A severe weather event which includes flooding could potentially impact water supply, although such incidents have not occurred. Power outages for the area also results in a PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-13 September 2023 Table 3-6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk loss of water service for most of PUD 1’s water systems due to no standby generators for the well pumps. 3 Flood 2.80 High Several critical facilities or building structures owned by PUD are within the 100- year flood hazard area; none are within the 500-year zone. In addition to direct impact, flooding issues could also impact the wells in the area. Flood events could impact response to downed lines. 4 Climate Change 2.45 Medium Climate change will impact the district through increased frequency of storm events, flooding, landslides, increased wildfire danger, and drought situations. 5 Landslide 2.15 Medium The PUD has six (6) identified structures within the landslide hazard areas, or within 500’ thereof. The PUD does own an extensive number of poles and lines, some of which have been impacted annually by landslide events. Assessment on the poles and lines were outside of the scope of this project. 6 Wildfire 2.15 Medium Wildfires in the area have the potential to impact all lines and poles, as well as all structures, which fall into the various Fire Regimes. All poles and lines are subject to the wildfire risk. 7 Drought 2.15 Low Drought will impact water supply for power generation and increase wildfire danger in the area. The District already mandates water use restrictions during peak use seasons due to drought and high consumption. 3.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-14 September 2023 3.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the District identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the District assets and hazards of concern. Table 3-7 lists the action items/strategies that make up the District’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the District), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. TABLE 3-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimate d Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE # P-1: Acquire a Mobile Substation to better withstand damage from major events and/or maintenance requirements at substations. Each of Mason PUD 3’s twelve substations supply electricity to approximately 1,500 to over 5,000 residents. The Mobile Substation could be used by multiple agencies for the benefit of Mason County residents. New/ Existing ALL 1,5,6,7 Operations, Purchasing, Finance, Local/Regional Partners High PUD General Fund, Inter local Agreement, BRIC, HMGP Grants Long-Term Yes Preventive, Emergency Response, Property Protection, Recovery Facility, Local, County and Region INITIATIVE # P-2: Replace the Hood Canal Submarine Cable; a 6,000-foot, three-phase underwater, ground laid, armored cable installed in 1969 and used as a redundant, geo-diverse feed for approximately 3,000 customers. A life -prolonging attempt to inject insulative gel made its way through two of the phase s but not the third phase signaling potential issues and increased levels of concern for reliability. Without this cable in place, PUD 3 is not able to take critical substations down for scheduled preventative maintenance. Additionally, when outages occur, this cable provides service to geographically isolated and economically distressed communities which may be critical during a natural disaster. Replacement of this cable will make it more resistant to disastrous conditio ns such as earthquakes. New/ Existing ALL 1,2,4,5,7 Engineering, Purchasing, Finance, Operations High ~$3.5m PUD General Fund, BRIC, HMGP Grants Short-Term No Prevention, Property Protection, Emergency Response, Recovery Facility, Local, County INITIATIVE # P-3: Continue with proactive Tree Trimming program. This is a cyclic program with the goal of having enough miles trimmed each year so that the entire system is complete every five years. Additionally, hazardous trees are reported by custo mers and field personnel and investigated. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-15 September 2023 TABLE 3-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimate d Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region Existing WS, SW, WF, FS 4,5,10,11 Operations, Finance Low PUD General Fund, Fire Grants, HLS, EMPG, Tribal Funds Ongoing Yes Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Recovery Facility, Local, County INITIATIVE # P-4: Implement Wildfire Prevention Plan District-wide, which includes preventative projects and activities such as: Improve system protections and operation of devices, reducing fuse sizes, replace legacy devices to reduce exposure to live l ines, soil resistivity testing/grounding, fire retardant wraps in at-risk locations, tree wire upgrades, replace outdated arrestors, update safety & reliability standards, etc. New/ Existing WF, FS, IF 1,3,4,5,7, 10 Engineering, Purchasing, Finance, Operations Medium PUD General Fund, Fire Grants as available Short-Term No Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services Facility, Local, County INITIATIVE # P-5: Continue implementation of public Safety Education Programs within Mason County to educate citizens about the hazards faced with the utility and the appropriate preparedness and response measures. Existing ALL 6,7,9,10 Operations, Engineering, Safety, PIO, Education Committee Low PUD General Fund Ongoing Yes Prevention, Public Information and Education, Emergency Services, Recovery Local, County INITIATIVE # P-6: Continue to update and implement Business Continuity and Disaster Plan for emergency operations and planning efforts to help ensure continuity of operations and system reliability. New/ Existing ALL 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,9,10, 11 Operations, Safety, Administration, PIO Low PUD General Fund Short-Term Yes Prevention, Recovery, Public Information and Education, Emergency Services Facility, County, Community INITIATIVE # P-7: Continue with proactive Pole Inspection Test and Treat program. This is a cyclic program with the goal of inspecting every pole in the District’s service territory every ten years (which is industry standard). As poles have an aver age 50-year lifespan, the District’s goal is to ensure safety and reliability b y identifying and replacing poles which have met their end-of-life and are a hazard to the public and line workers. New/ Existing WS, SW, IF, L 1,2,3,4,5, 7,10,11 Engineering, Finance, Purchasing Low PUD General Fund Ongoing No Prevention, Property Protection Facility, Local, County Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-16 September 2023 TABLE 3-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimate d Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE # P-8: Install Weather Monitoring Cameras in areas where the District currently has fiber access throughout the District for crews responding in inclement weather to emergency outages. The cameras would be accessible to the public and pa rtner agencies like county crews, fire districts, and emergency responders. New/ Existing WS, SW, ET 1,3,6,7,9 Engineering, Finance, Purchasing, IS, Telecom Low PUD General Fund Short-Term No Public Information and Education, Emergency Services, Recovery Local, County 3.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 3-8 identifies the prioritization for each initiative. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-17 September 2023 Table 3-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # Of Objective s Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya P-1 4 H H Y Y N H P-2 5 H H Y Y Y H P-3 4 H M Y N Y H P-4 6 M L Y Y Y H P-5 4 H L Y N Y H P-6 10 M L Y N Y H P-7 8 M L Y Y Y H P-8 5 H L Y Y Y H a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 3.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 3-9 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-18 September 2023 Table 3-9. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r INITIATIVE # P-1: Determine the necessity for a mobile substation to better withstand damage from major events and/or maintenance requirements at substations. Once need is determined, seek partnership with PUD 1 and/or other utilities in the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ongoing: The PUD will be increasing the priority of the project and looking for multiple funding sources and seeking availability as the supply chain is becoming a real risk to the reliable delivery of power. ✓ INITIATIVE # P-2: Evaluate radio system coverage for the District through radio mobile testing. Radio communication has become unreliable with an outdated system. A full upgrade will need to take place in order to better serve customers and maintain communication with field personnel for safety. Work with local planning partners to determine feasibility of shared equipment and/or ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The PUD completed its digital radio upgrade throughout its service territory. Continued analysis of radio coverage is on- going. Low performing areas will be addressed as appropriate. ✓ PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 September 2023 Table 3-9. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r INITIATE # P-3: Continue routine tree trimming on 5- year cycle to minimize hazardous trees and debris from overhead lines. The benefit outweighs the cost to owner- ratepayers with system reliability. ✓ The PUD continues with the tree trimming program. There are currently two full-time tree crews and one contracted tree crew. The goal each year is to trim enough miles of line to remain on the 5- year cycle. Additionally, hazardous trees are reported by customers and field personnel and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ✓ INITIATIVE # P-4: Determine the necessity for a backup communication tower for Kamilche Tower, in the event it does not withstand damage from major events and/or during maintenance work. The backup tower could serve all critical emergency services ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The PUD determined this is no longer a necessary action. Other communication towers throughout the service territory are sufficient for temporary backup communications. ✓ Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 3-20 September 2023 Table 3-9. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r INITIATIVE # P-5: Continue implementation of public safety education programs within Mason County to educate citizens about the hazards faced with the utility and the appropriate preparedness and response measures ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The PUD continues to find value in educating the public about electrical safety and being prepared for emergencies and disasters. ✓ INITIATIVE # P-6: Continue to update and implement Business Continuity Plan for emergency operations and planning efforts to help ensure continuity of operations and system reliability. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The PUD utilized its business continuity plan during the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to update it based on operational/procedural changes and improvements made during the emergency. ✓ 3.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Information in this plan was from the 2022 annual report for the fiscal year ending in 2022. Since completion of the last plan, PUD 3 service area has increased in numbers of customers prompting the need for significant infrastructure development. In 2020, the District energized a new Totten substation to meet the growth on the south end of its service territory including tribal and shellfish industry expansion. The District anticipates future growth in the urban growth areas of Belfair and Shelton and is responding with the planning, design, and construction of switching yards, transmission lines, and substations in these two areas concurrently. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 3-21 September 2023 The risk to customers in the Cushman area of Mason PUD 3’s service territory (approximately 2,000 customers) has increased since the last plan with respect to the services provided by the District. The Potlatch substation serving that area is currently owned by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the output is shared by Mason PUD 1 and Mason PUD 3. The BPA has notified the two utilities that it will no longer provide upgrades/maintenance to the substation which was built in 1969. The District has purchased land adjacent to the existing substation and has plans to build a new substation within the next five years. Additionally, since the last plan, the District has modernized its grid with a heavy reliance on its fiber optic network for meter reading, system monitoring, and security. While the system would be able to operate manually with the loss of telecommunications, it would hinder the speed of operations in a disaster or emergency situation. Bridgeview Consulting 4-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 4. MASON COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 2023 ANNEX UPDATE 4.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Mason County PUD No. 1, a participating special purpose district to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Mason County PUD No. 1. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as an update to the district’s previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1. 4.1.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact The Mason County PUD No. 1 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the Mason County PUD No. 1 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Kristin Masteller, General Manager 21971 N. Hwy 101 Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone: 360-877-5249 e-mail Address: kristinm@mason- pud1.org Primary Point of Contact Attended planning team meetings; provided impact data re: power outages; provided hazard impact data; gave BOC briefings; presented final plan for adoption. James Reyes 21971 N. Hwy 101 Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone: 360-877-5249 Jreyes@mascon-pud1.org Engineering Manager Served as alternate point of contact for all phases of plan development. Provided general information; conducted review of plan at various stages. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-2 September 2023 Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Katie Arnold 21971 N. Hwy 101 Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone: 360-877-5249 e-mail Address: karnold@mason- pud1.org District Treasurer and Director of Business Services Attended planning team meetings; provided impact data re: power outages; updated annex template with current data; provided hazard loss data; assisted with BOC briefings; coordinated and distributed public outreach information. 4.2 DISTRICT PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction as it is in place for the 2023 update: • Governing Authority— The district is governed by the Board of Commissioners • Population Served—8,400 water & electric customers as of January 2023 • Land Area Served—Hood Canal and Mason County • Land Area Owned—The PUD provides services countywide. • List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: Water $16,650,447 Electric $37,618,956 Sewer $91,577 • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $54,360,980 • Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is $6,956,712 • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— The District anticipates slow but steady growth (3-5%) to continue in Mason County, impacting both the water and electric business. 4.3 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that are unique to the special purpose. Table 4-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the district. If available, dollar loss data is also included. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-3 September 2023 Table 4-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date/Period Incident Dollar Losses (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 $514,728 Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20-1/16/21 $74,060 Severe Storm 4539 1/20/-2/10/2020 $163,887 Pandemic 4481 1/20/20 – Present $153,387 Severe Winter Storm 4418 12/10-24/2018 $57,356 Flood 4253 12/1-12/14/2015 Data not available. Snow Storm, High Winds 1079 11/7/95-12/18/95 Data not available. Ice Storm 1159 12/26/96-2/10/97 Data not available. Severe Wind storm, Flooding 1499 10/15/03- 10/23/03 Data not available. Severe Wind storm, Landslides 1641 2/2/06- 2/4/06 Data not available. Severe Storm, Landslides 1682 12/14/06- 12/15/16 Data not available. Severe Storm, Snow/Ice 1734 12/1/07- 12/17/07 Data not available. Severe Storm, Snow/Ice 1825 12/12/08- 1/7/09 Data not available. Severe Storm, High Winds, Landslides 4249 11/12/15- 11/21/15 Data not available. Local Area Disaster – Not Declared Snow Storm, Landslides n/a 12/21/12- 12/24/12 Data not available. Severe Wind Storm n/a 3/10/16- 3/13/16 Data not available. Snow Storm n/a 2/09/19-2/13/19 87,922 Severe Wind Storm n/a 9/2/20-9/19/20 75,957 Severe Storm n/a 11/28/22-12/23/22 164,686 4.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction’s capabilities with respect to preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events and incidents. Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-4 September 2023 following sections: regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs. 4.4.1 Regulatory Capability The assessment of the district’s legal and regulatory capabilities, including planning and land management regulations which are customarily used by location jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities, are identified in Table 4-2. Those items applicable to the district are identified. Table 4-2 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Floodplain Ordinance Stormwater Management Post Disaster Recovery Real Estate Disclosure Growth Management Site Plan Review Public Health and Safety X Water Adequacy Determinations Coastal Zone Management Climate Change Adaptation Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire, etc.) Environmental Protection Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-5 September 2023 Table 4-2 Legal and Regulatory Capability Supporting Mitigation Local Authority Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Floodplain or Basin Plan Stormwater Plan Capital Improvement Plan X PUD 1 CIP plan for water & electric Habitat Conservation Plan Economic Development Plan Shoreline Management Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan Transportation Plan Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan Post-Disaster Recovery Plan X PUD 1 Disaster Preparedness Plan Continuity of Operations Plan X PUD 1 Disaster Preparedness Plan Public Health Plans Boards and Commission Planning Commission Mitigation Planning Committee Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems, chipping, etc.) X Annual Vegetation Management program Mutual Aid Agreements / Memorandums of Understanding X Mutual Aid Agreements with neighboring utilities and BPA Other X PUD Wildfire Mitigation Plan Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-6 September 2023 4.4.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the district’s administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 4-3. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Table 4-3 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices NO Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) NO Engineers specializing in construction practices? NO Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards NO Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis YES District Treasurer Surveyors NO Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications YES Electric & Water Depts. Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use NO Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area NO Emergency Manager NO Grant writers YES GM & Treasurer Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) NO Hazard data and information available to public YES Mason County’s Data Maintain Elevation Certificates NO Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? NO Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection? NO Organization focused on individuals with access and functional needs populations NO PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-7 September 2023 Table 4-3 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) YES Ongoing through social media and print media for water use and household preparedness for loss of utilities. Natural disaster or safety related school programs? NO Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? NO Multi-seasonal public awareness program? YES Ongoing through social and print media for utility-specific messaging. Other NO On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program YES PUD 1-specific vegetation mgmt. program Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management NO Fire Safe Councils NO Chipper program YES PUD 1- specific chipper use for VM program. Defensible space inspections program NO Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance or cleaning program NO Stream restoration program NO Erosion or sediment control program NO Address signage for property addresses NO Other NO 4.4.3 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 4-4. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Table 4-4 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants YES Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-8 September 2023 Table 4-4 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Capital Improvements Project Funding YES Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes YES User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service YES Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds YES Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds UNKNOWN Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds UNKNOWN Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas NO State Sponsored Grant Programs YES Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers YES Other NO 4.5 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The district’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 4-5. Each of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are indicated accordingly. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-9 September 2023 Table 4-5 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Date Enrolled Community Rating System NO Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule NO Storm Ready NO Firewise NO Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NO 4.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan and have identified the hazards that affect Mason County PUD No. 1. Table 4-6 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications: □ Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services. □ Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services. □ Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. □ High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services. □ Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-10 September 2023 Table 4-6. Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 1 Earthquake 3.40 High Most of the PUD’s structures fall within the very low to low liquefaction area (over 140), with 17 in the moderate to high liquefaction area, and three in the low to moderate. Some structures identified are masonry (unreinforced and reinforced masonry), steel; pre-cast, and manufactured structure. Many of the PUD’s facilities (both water and power) are older (1954-1969). An earthquake would also impact the district’s ability to provide service and repair lines as disruption in other areas outside of the planning area could impact transmission. In addition, failed roadways would also impact response capabilities for ingress and egress to lines, substations, and water facilities. 2 Severe Weather 3.0 High All structures, poles, and lines (both water and power) can be impacted by a severe weather event. Impact could include power outages throughout the service area. The PUD has well over 5,000 poles and miles of line along the Olympic National Forest and Hood Canal. The PUD does conduct regular tree-trimming do help reduce the impact; however, power outages will continue to occur due to high wind events, ice forming on the power lines, lightning strikes, etc. A severe weather event which includes flooding could potentially impact water supply, although such incidents have not occurred. Power outages for the area also results in a loss of water service for most of PUD 1’s water systems due to no standby generators for the well pumps. 3 Flood 2.8 High 22 critical facilities or building structures owned by PUD are within the 100-year flood hazard area; none are within the 500-year zone. In addition to direct impact, flooding issues could also impact the wells in the area. Flood events could impact response to downed lines. PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-11 September 2023 Table 4-6. Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 4 Climate Change 2.45 Medium Climate change will impact the district through increased frequency of storm events, flooding, landslides, increased wildfire danger, and drought situations. 5 Landslide 2.15 Medium (Greater potential for impact along roadways and power poles) The PUD has six (6) identified structures within the landslide hazard areas, or within 500’ thereof. The PUD does own an extensive number of poles and lines, some of which have been impacted annually by landslide events. Assessment on the poles and lines were outside of the scope of this project. 6 Wildfire 2.15 Low Wildfires in the area have the potential to impact all lines and poles, as well as all structures, which fall into the various Fire Regimes. All poles and lines are subject to the wildfire risk. 6 Drought 2.15 Low Drought will impact water supply for power generation and increase wildfire danger in the area. The District already mandates water use restrictions during peak use seasons due to drought and high consumption. The hazard ranking for the most part remained unchanged, with the top three hazards remaining consistent from the 2018 plan to this 2023 update. While PUD 1 has increased its critical facilities due to acquisition of new infrastructure and structures, that does not increase its vulnerability other than the fact that there are more assets. 4.7 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PUD 1 adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 4.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 4-7 lists the action items/strategies that make up the district’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-12 September 2023 outside the district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. Table 4-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #1- Continue social media activity to alert customers and residents of utility interruptions, extreme weather events, disaster events, planning, resources, transportation/highway closures, etc. Existing All All PUD 1 Public Outreach coordinator Low n/a – PUD General Funds Ongoing YES Public Information Local/ Regional INITIATIVE #2- Procure a mobile substation to help power sections of the grid during prolonged and significant outages; keep critical facilities in power- schools, hospitals, EMS, MACECOM, etc. Can be shared with neighboring counties. NEW All All PUD 1 General Manager High Dept. of Energy (DOE) Grant, BRIC Grant Long-term YES Emergency Services Local/ Regional INITIATIVE #3- Construct a Jorstad substation near the Mason/Jefferson County line to enable looping and keep the 1,600 customers on the Hwy 101 N. feeder in power if one of the other substations fails or there is a massive slide/storm that take s out infrastructure along 101. NEW All All PUD 1 General Manager High BRIC, ARPA Grant, PUD 1 General Funds Short Term YES Preventative, Structural Projects Local INITIATIVE #4- Construct Manzanita substation to modernize and replace the aging Union substation and provide a more robust and reliable power supply to the Union and Skokomish Valley area. NEW All All PUD 1 Operations Mgr. Low BRIC Grant, HUD or DOE Grant Short-term NO Preventative, Structural Projects Local INITIATIVE #5- Seven to 10 Year Vegetation Management Trim Cycle System -Wide Existing All All PUD 1 Operations Mgr. Low SAFER Grant, Fire Mgmt. Grants Ongoing YES Preventative, Natural Resource Protection Local PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-13 September 2023 Table 4-7. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #6- Utility Pole Testing & Replacements Existing All All PUD 1 Operations Medium BRIC, PUD 1 General Funds Long-term YES Preventative Local INITIATIVE #7- Interties at 106, Manzanita and Lake Cushman with PUD3 for redundant power feeds when one of us goes offline NEW All All PUD 1 Operations Medium BRIC or DOE grants, Long term NO Preventative, Recovery Local/ Regional 4.9 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 4-8 identifies the prioritization for each initiative. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 4-14 September 2023 Table 4-8. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 1 100+ H L Y N Y H 2 0 H H Y Y N M 3 3 M H Y Y Partially M 4 7 M L Y Y Partially H 5 3 H M Y N Y H 6 3 M M Y Y Partially M 7 1 M M Y Y Partially M a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 4.10 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 4-9 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. Table 4-9. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r 1- Communications X X X X X X Completed and ongoing. X 2- Mobile Substation X X X X X Not begun. X 3- Jorstad Substation X X X X X X Land procured. In design phase. X 4- Manzanita Substation X X X X X X In design phase. Equipment purchased. X 5- Vegetation Management X X X X X Trimmed 3 out of 7 areas. Applied for grants for whole system trimming and highline truck. Removed danger trees each year. X PUD 3 ANNEX UPDATE Bridgeview Consulting 4-15 September 2023 Table 4-9. 2023 Status of previous Hazard Mitigation STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r 6- Test and Replace poles X X X X Replaced 300+ poles. Completed pole attachment audit. Have not started inspection. X 7- Power Interties X X X X X X Engineering design completed for 1/3 interties. Interlocal agreement between PUD 1 and PUD 3 executed. Soliciting funding. X Bridgeview Consulting 5-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 5. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2023 ANNEX UPDATE 5.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Central Mason Fire and EMS (CMFE), a participating special purpose district to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Mason County DEM Planning Team. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as an update to the district’s previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1. 5.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT The CMFE followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the CMFE also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks K.C. Whitehouse, Battalion Chief 122 W Franklin ST Shelton, WA 98584 360-545-2037 kwhitehouse@cmfe.org Primary Point of Contact Attend meetings, provide local data to planning partnership; seek necessary information from inside district to complete annex template; assist with public outreach efforts; present final plan and CMFE Annex to Fire Commissioners for review and adoption. Jeff Snyder, Chief 122 W Franklin Shelton, WA 98584 360.229-1733 jsnyder@cmfe.org Alternate Point of Contact Work with Batt. Chief to participate in countywide planning process. Assist with information gathering to provide to planning team. Assist with completion of annex template. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-2 September 2023 5.3 DISTRICT PROFILE Central Mason Fire & EMS (CMFE) is an all-hazards fire protection district established under Chapter 52 of the Revised Code of Washington. Situated between the Olympic Mountains and the Puget Sound, Central Mason serves the city of Shelton, and the communities of Allyn, Victor, Mason Lake, Pickering, Harstine Island, Agate, Deer Creek, Lake Limerick, Bayshore, John’s Prairie, Island Lake, and Sanderson Field. CMFE provides a wide range of emergency and non-emergency services out of six staffed stations and six volunteer stations. Services provided by CMFE include fire suppression, advanced life support (ALS) ambulance services, basic life support (BLS) ambulance services, rescue, incident management, fire investigation, community risk reduction, and fire marshal services. The CMFE full-time staff consists of one chief, one deputy chief, three battalion chiefs (two certified as paramedics), one division chief of administrative services, one training/health & safety captain (certified as paramedic), one fire marshal, one deputy fire marshal, 12 lieutenants (seven certified as paramedics), 39 firefighters (18 certified as paramedics), one firefighter/mechanic, one facilities maintenance technician, and three administrative support staff members. Our volunteer staff includes 28 firefighters. All firefighters are trained to NFPA 1001 and WAC 296-305 standards. The CMFE coverage area includes several pieces of critical infrastructure to the region, including 13 schools, one community college, three major highways, a major natural gas pipeline, the rail line leading to the Navy SUBBASE Bangor and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, as well as the transmission lines that power the much of the Olympic Peninsula. In addition, MCFD 5’s response area includes three popular state parks. CMFE maintains interlocal agreements and/or contracts for service to provide assistance for: county- wide mutual aid, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Fire Service Mobilization, Emergency Management Assistance Compact, and Washington Corrections Center. At the time this report was filed, CMFE is in the process of executing a merger with Mason County Fire District #11. The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: Governing Authority— The district is governed by elected fire commissioners. Population Served—31,186 as of 2023 Land Area Served— Fire District = 165 Square Miles. ALS Coverage = 748 Square Miles. Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the district is $5.3-billion. Land Area Owned— CMFE currently owns parcels in nine locations within the fire district. Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: (11) fire engines, (3) water tenders, (1) ladder truck, (5) brush engines, (8) ambulances, (10) staff vehicles, and (4) support vehicles. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-3 September 2023 Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $43,829,000.00 CRITICAL FACILITIES OWNED BY THE JURISDICTION AND VALUES Structure Building Value Content Value Total Value City of Shelton Fire Station $ 12,000,000.00 $ 5,700,000.00 $ 17,700,000.00 CMFE Station #1 $ 1,240,000.00 $ 1,650,000.00 $ 2,890,000.00 CMFE Station #2 $ 130,000.00 $ 77,000.00 $ 207,000.00 CMFE Station #3 $ 1,750,000.00 $ 1,880,000.00 $ 3,630,000.00 CMFE Station #4 $ 960,000.00 $ 1,650,000.00 $ 2,610,000.00 CMFE Station #5 $ 402,000.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 1,212,000.00 CMFE Station #6 $ 495,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,995,000.00 CMFE Station #7 $ 2,800,000.00 $ 1,650,000.00 $ 4,450,000.00 CMFE Station #9 $ 870,000.00 $ 1,270,000.00 $ 2,140,000.00 CMFE Station #10 $ 618,000.00 $ 1,350,000.00 $ 1,968,000.00 CMFE Station #11 $ 1,930,000.00 $ 1,800,000.00 $ 3,730,000.00 CMFE Station #12 $ 487,000.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 1,297,000.00 TOTALS $ 23,682,000.00 $ 20,147,000.00 $ 43,829,000.00 SERVICE TRENDS 2020-2022 Major Incident Breakdown 2022 % of Total Calls 2021 % of Total Calls 2020 % of Total Calls Fires 193 2.07% 195 2.17% 183 2.28% Overpressure ruptures, explosion, overheat - no fire 3 0.03% 6 0.07% 6 0.07% Rescue & Emergency Medical Service 6,454 69.26% 6,322 70.35% 6,149 76.60% Hazardous Conditions (No Fire) 79 0.85% 62 0.69% 63 0.79% Service Call 799 8.57% 792 8.81% 526 6.55% Good Intent Call 1,451 15.57% 1,344 14.95% 808 10.07% False Alarm & False Call 315 3.38% 245 2.73% 265 3.30% Severe Weather & Natural Disaster 20 0.22% 10 0.11% 19 0.24% Special Incident Type 5 0.05% 11 0.12% 8 0.10% TOTALS 9,319 8,987 8,027 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-4 September 2023 – Service trends in the area will continue to increase due to commercial and residential growth within CMFE coverage. The Shelton and Allyn Urban Growth Areas have seen considerable growth over the last five years. Three major residential expansions are in the permitting phase within the Shelton city limits. – Current and forecasted growth within the fire district is predominantly in areas identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (2020) as being in the wildland/urban interface. Many of these areas within the fire district include high densities of Highly Valued Resources and Assets (HVRA’s). – The CMFE response area will soon include the Port of Shelton at Sanderson Field through merger with Mason County Fire District #11. The Port of Shelton at Sanderson Field is home to several key pieces of infrastructure to the region and is an economic hub for Mason County. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-5 September 2023 Figure 5-1 CMFE Service Area Boundaries Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-6 September 2023 5.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY CMFE provided response activities to all of those disasters identified within Table 5-1. In addition to those events identified, the District also responded to many additional events, one of which included resources owned by PUD 3. That incident is also identified below as a significant event which did not rise to a disaster declaration. Table 5-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 Unknown Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20- 1/16/21 Unknown Severe Storm 4539 1/20/- 2/10/2020 Unknown Pandemic 4481 1/20/20 – Present Unknown Severe Storm 4418 12/10- 24/2018 Unknown Flood 4253 12/1/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4269 11/12/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4056 1/14/2012 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008 Unknown Flood 1817 1/6/2009 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1734 12/1/2007 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1682 12/14/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1641 1/27/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1499 10/15/2003 Unknown Earthquake 1361 2/28/2001 Unknown Flood 1172 3/18/1997 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1159 12/26/1996 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1079 11/7/1995 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 981 1/20/1993 Unknown CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-7 September 2023 Table 5-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Flood 883 11/9/1990 Unknown Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown Flood 612 12/31/1979 Unknown Flood 492 12/13/1975 Unknown Flood 414 1/25/1974 Unknown Earthquake 196 5/11/1965 Unknown Flood 185 12/29/1964 Unknown Jurisdiction Specific Incidents Not Rising to Level of Disaster Declaration Wildfire by PUD 3 Headquarters - 240 Acres burned 10/2014 Unknown Damages 5.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following codes, ordinance, policies or plans which are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan or support hazard mitigation planning efforts are identified as follows: • Central Mason Fire and EMS Strategic Plan • Central Mason Fire and EMS Policy and Guidelines • Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan with the Mason County o www.masoncountywa.gov • Capital Improvement Program, renewed as needed • Federal Mitigation Act of 2000 requires State, Tribal and local governments to develop a hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for mitigation projects. The District’s current approved Hazard Mitigation Plan Update supports this regulation and plan update. • County and Regional Response Plans • National Response Framework • National Incident Management System • Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service) • WAC 296.305 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-8 September 2023 5.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the district’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 5-2. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Table 5-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Yes These services are provided through the County. CMFE has a certified Fire Marshal / Inspector Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes These services, when necessary, may be contracted or provided by County. Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications No Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use No Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Through County and State resources. Emergency Manager Yes The County provides this service. Grant writers Yes We have two staff members. The fire district has the authority to apply for grants. Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) Yes County public works has signage available for use for warning systems; also County communications programs support the District as needed for warning and broadcasts. We also use our PIO and social media for this. Hazard data and information available to public Yes Hazard maps developed through this process are available on the County’s website for review. Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? Yes CERT teams trained with citizens throughout the County and within the City of Shelton Firewise, Washington Fire Adapted Communities, WA DNR Wildfire Ready Neighbors Yes Harstine Pointe is Firewise certified. Harstine Island is affiliated with the Washington Fire Adapted Communities. Lake Limerick, Rainbow Lake, and Emerald Lake are affiliated with WA DNR Wildfire Ready Neighbors. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? Yes We work with many small communities in the Fire District to address Disaster Preparedness. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-9 September 2023 Table 5-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The County regularly provides seasonal awareness programs via its website, safety fairs, Twitter accounts. On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management No Fire Safe Councils Yes Chipper program Yes Defensible space inspections program Yes Address signage for property addresses Yes Other 5.5.2 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the jurisdiction’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 5-3. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-10 September 2023 Table 5-3 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Other 5.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The district’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 5-4. Each of the classifications identified establishes requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are indicated accordingly. Table 5-4 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Protection Class 5 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Commercial – 3 Dwelling - 4 Storm Ready Yes - County Firewise Yes Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NA 5.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified the hazards that affect Central Mason Fire & EMS. Following the same process identified in the base plan, Table 5-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-11 September 2023 Based on the industry that CMFE operates, the internal Planning Team determined that wildfire warranted a ranking of “high.” This ranking is based on evaluation of impacts from previous events, as well as data sourced from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Wildland/Urban Interface Risk Map and the Pacific Northwest Qualitative Risk Assessment. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications: □ Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services. □ Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services. □ Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. □ High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services. □ Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. Table 5-5. Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 1 Wildfire 3.1 High The majority of structures owned by the district fall into Fire Regimes 3 and 5. While structures owned by the district have not been impacted by wildfire, the district’s response to wildfire events has increased over the last several years, potentially because of climate change and the drought which the entire state experienced several times over the course of the last few years, as well as some of the driest summers on record with record-reaching temperatures occurring since completion of the last plan. CMF has been fortunate to be able to control wildfires which have erupted, although there was a significant wildfire which occurred significantly impacting PUD 3. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-12 September 2023 Table 5-5. Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 2 Severe Weather 2.35 Medium Severe storms can impact all of the District’s structures. Most structures included in this assessment were built in 1977-1978 timeframe. One was built in 1920, the newest structure built in 1980. Strong winds in the area could damage the facilities. Severe storms also impact response capabilities. Falling trees and flooded roadways impact ingress and egress. Snow, while customarily not of a long duration or significant amounts, also has the potential to impact response times, as well as increasing calls for service. Snow-load capacities can also be of concern, causing roofs to collapse during significant snow event. Many of the structures in the service area are older in nature and may be impacted by such an event. A combined snow/rain event could also overcome drainage capacity, further impacting response. 3 Earthquake 3.55 High The entire planning area is susceptible to earthquakes. While all of the structures owned by the district fall within the “very low” liquefaction zone, all of the structures are dated, making them more susceptible to the EQ hazard. All but three of the structures owned by the district included in this assessment are wood, with three being steel construction. 4 Flood 2.4 Medium None of the district’s structures fall within either the 100- or 500-year floodplain; however, response to areas flooded do frequently occur. In some instances, response is hampered by floodwaters over roadways. 5 Landslide 2.9 Medium No structures owned by the district fall within the landslide hazard area; however, there are roadways throughout the County as a whole that are many times impacted by landslides occurring, particularly along major arterials. This does have the potential to impact the district due to delayed response times, or impacting ability for adequate staffing if roadways are impacted. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-13 September 2023 Table 5-5. Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk 6 Climate Change 3.1 Low Climate change will continue to exacerbate other hazards of concern, including increased severity of severe storms, increased flooding events, and impact to water supplies. These have the potential to impact not only district-owned structures, but also response capabilities. 7 Drought 2.05 Extremely Low Droughts will increase the risk to wildfire and has the ability to limit water supplies needed to fight fires. The increase to wildfire danger could also impact the risk to the district’s structures The service area in which CMFE is situated are the areas which have experienced the most rapid growth within Mason County since completion of the 2018 plan. With the increased calls for service, the district does feel there is a great amount of vulnerability within its service area as a whole due to the increase in population and structures; however, with respect to the district’s facilities, the vulnerability remains consistent with the 2018 plan. 5.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CMFE adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 5.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for CMFE has identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 5-6 lists the action items/strategies that make up the district’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-14 September 2023 Table 5-6. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Object ives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long-Term, Short-Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #1 Refine and expand CMFE public education programs related to risk profile and identified hazards, such as wildland fires, earthquakes, and severe weather events. Principal focus will be on basic all hazard preparedness. Existing All 1, 2, 3, 4 CMFE Chief or Designee $2,000 DEM, FEMA, Tribal Funds or Fire Grants, District funds Short Term No Public Information, Resource Protection, Emergency Services This will benefit all district residents, and visitors. INITIATIVE #2 Maintain and expand wildfire risk reduction programs (FireWise USA, Fire Adapted Communities, & Wildfire Ready Neighbors) throughout the fire district. Both Wildfire All CMFE Chief or Designee $50,000 Fire Grants, FEMA Grants, District funds Short Term No Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery Private, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #3 Evaluate and expand disaster preparedness efforts on Harstine Island and other at-risk communities. Both All All CMFE Chief or Designee Medium DEM, Fire or BRIC Grants, District Funds Long Term No Preventive Activities, Emergency Services, Recovery Local, County, Region 5.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 5-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative. CENTRAL MASON FIRE & EMS ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 5-15 September 2023 Table 5-7. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (a) 1 4 H L Y Y Y H 2 All H H Y Y Y H 3 All H M Y Y N M a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 5.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 5-8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. TABLE 5-8. STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES Associated Hazards Current Status Mitigation Strategy Co a s t a l E r o s i o n Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s La n d s l i d e s Se v e r e W e a t h e r Ts u n a m i Wi l d l a n d F i r e 2023 Project Status Co m p l e t e d Co n t i n u a l / O n g o i n g Na t u r e Re m o v e d / N o L o n g e r Re l e v a n t / N o A c t i o n Ca r r i e d O v e r Station 57 Generator ✓ Project Complete ✓ Station 51 Relocation ✓ Project will be reevaluated as part of capital facilities planning. ✓ 5.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY With the anticipated continued growth in the area, the CMFE will need to conduct additional risk and vulnerability assessments as development trends change to allow for a better understanding with respect to personnel and staffing, as well as equipment needs with respect to calls for service to ensure continued public safety at the appropriate levels. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 5-16 September 2023 Bridgeview Consulting 6-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 6. MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2023 ANNEX UPDATE 6.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Mason County Fire District 16, a participating special purpose district to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by Fire Protection District 16. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as an update to the district’s previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1. 6.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT Mason County Fire District 16 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the Mason County Fire District 16 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Matthew N Welander PO Box 2436 Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone: 360-485-3714 Email: mwelander@mcfd16.com Fire Chief, Primary Point of Contact Attend meetings; provide local data to planning partnership; seek necessary information from inside district to complete annex template. Greg Seals PO Box 2436 Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone: 360-426-7343 Email: gseals@mcfd16.com Deputy Fire Chief Alternate Point of Contact Work with Chief to participate in countywide planning process. Assist with information gathering to provide to planning team; assist with completion of annex template. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-2 September 2023 6.3 DISTRICT PROFILE Mason County Fire District 16 is in Mason County, bordering the City of Shelton on the west side of the city. The district covers the area in between Shelton and the Matlock area. In 2018 Mason County Fire District 9 merged into District 16. Formed in 1977 the original station was built primarily with lumber donated by the Simpson Timber Company. The fire district provides fire suppression, rescue and emergency medical services, and wildland/urban interface protection to the approximately 5500 permanent residents. In addition to the permanent residents, the district is responsible for the protection of a major state prison and a 90-acre motor sports facility, which both more than doubles our population and add special hazards. Funding for the district is provided by fire taxes, impact fees from the prison, and use fees for stand-by at the track. The fire district is made up of three elected commissioners, two paid Chief Officers, and approximately 10 volunteer fire personnel. The Headquarters Station is located at the intersection of Shelton Matlock and Dayton Airport Roads. With satellite stations located in the Brockdale area, Skokomish Valley, and Shelton Valley. The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: Governing Authority— The district is governed by elected commissioners. Population Served— 4,900 as of 2022, with the 2016 population served at 3,433, signifying a significant increase. In addition, FD #16 also serves 1,200 inmates and large numbers of spectators at the motorsports park Land Area Served— As of 2022, 94 square miles, with 2016 service area at 54 Square Miles Land Area Owned—3.5 acres – We do not own the Skokomish Valley Station and no ability to mitigate any of the current or potential issues with the flooding in the area. Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: – Dayton Fire Station $550,000 – Shelton Valley Station $175,550 – Skokomish Valley Station $250,000 (Leased Property) – Brockdale Station $260,760 – 2 Engines and Contents $600,000 – 1 Tender $300,000 – 2 Brush Engines $100,000 – 1 Ambulance $100,000 – 2 Command Vehicles $120,000 Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the District is $1,640,000. List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Station 16-1 $700,000 Station 16-2 $200,000 Station 91 $200,000 FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 September 2023 Station 92 $300,000 Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is $1,400,000 • Current and Anticipated Service Trends – Mason County Fire District 16, is facing several issues in the ability to continue to provide services. We are a largely bedroom community, with the only industry tied directly to agriculture practices, timber, beef, etc. With that the availability of tax money is very limited. We are the only district in the county that saw a reduction in population since the last census. Between 2020 and 2022 we have seen a 5% drop in population with a call increase of 10% in that same time. The political climate has made it very difficult to increase funding through elective tax increases, and we now sit at the lowest tax rate of the county and have no EMS levy at all. As we move forward we will need to look at other funding sources to keep pace with the needs of the district. 6.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Anecdotally during storms, there is large areas of isolation due to the high percentage of overhead powerlines. Also of note is the Little Egypt area, which floods every year. There histrionically have been several large wildland fire incidents in our 80-90% timberland. The Skokomish Valley floods every year multiple times and cuts off the area’s access to services. In addition to this, the floods over the years have damaged the grange hall that we use for a warming and waiting center at times of flood and deep snow. We are currently without the ability to serve the public during those times. The following table identifies the disaster incidents which have impacted the county. At present, the District does not have any data which specifically illustrates impact to District facilities. This is something which the District has identified as a deficiency and will begin to capture moving forward. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-4 September 2023 Table 6-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 Unknown Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20-1/16/21 Unknown Severe Storm 4539 1/20/-2/10/2020 Unknown Pandemic 4481 1/20/20 – Present Unknown Severe Winter Storm 4418 12/10-24/2018 Unknown Flood 4253 12/1/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4269 11/12/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4056 1/14/2012 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008 Unknown Flood 1817 1/6/2009 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1734 12/1/2007 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1682 12/14/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1641 1/27/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1499 10/15/2003 Unknown Earthquake 1361 2/28/2001 Unknown Flood 1172 3/18/1997 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1159 12/26/1996 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1079 11/7/1995 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 981 1/20/1993 Unknown Flood 883 11/9/1990 Unknown Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown Flood 612 12/31/1979 Unknown FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-5 September 2023 Table 6-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Flood 492 12/13/1975 Unknown Flood 414 1/25/1974 Unknown Earthquake 196 5/11/1965 Unknown Flood 185 12/29/1964 Unknown 6.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following codes, ordinance, policies or plans which are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan or support hazard mitigation planning efforts are identified as follows: • Mason County Fire District #16 Strategic Plan • Mason County Fire District #16 SOP/SOGs • Emergency Operations Plan with the Mason County o www.masoncountywa.gov • Capital Improvement Program, renewed annually (See Strat Plan) • Federal Mitigation Act of 2000 requires State, Tribal and local governments to develop a hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for mitigation projects. The District’s current approved Hazard Mitigation Plan Update supports this regulation and plan update. • Response Plans • National Response Framework • National Incident Management System • Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service) • WAC 296.305 6.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the district’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6-2. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-6 September 2023 Table 6-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Yes These services are provided through the County. Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes These services, when necessary, may be contracted or provided by County. Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use Yes Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Through County and State resources. Emergency Manager Yes The County provides this service. Grant writers No While there is no designated staff, the District has the authority to apply for grants. Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) No County public works has signage available for use for warning systems; also County communications programs support the District as needed for warning and broadcasts. Hazard data and information available to public Yes Hazard maps developed through this process are available on the County’s website for review. Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? Yes CERT teams trained with citizens throughout the County and within the City of Shelton Firewise Groups? No There are limited groups which currently exist within areas of the County; however, this is a strategy addressed within the countywide strategies. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? Yes Skokomish watershed groups addressing flood potential within the watershed areas. Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The County regularly provides seasonal awareness programs via its website, safety fairs, Twitter accounts. On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes County Conservation District FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-7 September 2023 Table 6-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management Yes County Conservation District Fire Safe Councils Yes Chipper program Yes Available through DNR; however, rarely used. Defensible space inspections program Yes Address signage for property addresses No Other 6.5.2 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the District’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-3. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Table 6-3 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Other 6.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The district’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-4. Each of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are indicated accordingly. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-8 September 2023 Table 6-4 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Protection Class 7 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule County - 3 Storm Ready Yes - County Firewise No Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NA 6.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified the hazards that affect the Mason County Fire District 16. Following the same process identified in the base plan, Table 6-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications: □ Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services. □ Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services. □ Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. □ High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services. □ Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-9 September 2023 Table 6-5 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk (Impact to Structures and/or Service Area) 1 Severe Weather 3.5 Medium Severe storms can impact all of the District’s structures depending on the type of event. Strong winds in the area could damage the facilities. Severe storms also impact response capabilities. Falling trees and flooded roadways impact ingress and egress. Snow, while customarily not of a long duration or significant amounts, also has the potential to impact response times, as well as increasing calls for service. Snow-load capacities would not be of great concern, as all of the district’s structures were built 1979 or later. However, a combined snow/rain event could overcome drainage capacity, further impacting response. 2 Flood 3.7 High Flood would be of concern with respect to the district’s ability to respond to calls for service, as well as impact to structures. 3 Wildfire 3.1 Low The majority of the district’s structures fall within Fire Regime Class 3 (see wildfire profile for definition). Two of the structures are of concrete and steel construction. The remaining structure is wood construction, making it more vulnerable to fire. 4 Earthquake 3.6 High The entire planning area is susceptible to earthquakes, which would impact response times due to damaged infrastructure throughout the county. All structures owned by the district fall within the very low liquefaction hazard zone. Due to the age of much of the building stock throughout the county, earthquake would also be of concern with respect to staffing, and employees’ ability to report for duty due to blocked roadways, structure failure, etc. 5 Landslide 2.45 Low No structure is within the landslide hazard area, however, roadways impacted by landslides would reduce response times. 6 Drought 2.2 Extremely Low Droughts will increase the risk to wildfire and has the ability to limit water supplies needed to fight fires. The increase to wildfire danger could also impact the risk to the district’s structures. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-10 September 2023 Table 6-5 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk (Impact to Structures and/or Service Area) 7 Climate Change 1.15 Low Climate change will continue to exacerbate other hazards of concern, including increased severity of severe storms, increased flooding events, and impact to water supplies. These have the potential to impact not only district-owned structures, but also response capabilities. 6.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 6.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 6-6 lists the action items/strategies that make up the district’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-11 September 2023 Table 6-6 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Object ives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #1 Create a public education plan that would include classes, publication, and signage to raise the level of knowledge in the community about our current hazards, i.e., Wildland fires, Earthquakes, Powerline Awareness. Focus will be on basic all hazard preparedness. New All 1, 2, 3, 4 Fire District 16 Chief or designee $2,000 BRIC or HLS Grants, Tribal Grants, District funds Short Term Y Public Information This will benefit all district residents, and visitors. INITIATIVE #2 Add Larger Bays to Station 16-1 and remodel existing station, with emphasis on developing the ability to be a shelter for short to medium term displaced residents and emergency responders. Station 16-1 All All Fire District 16 Chief or designee High SAFER or BRIC grants, Bonds, District funds Long Term Y Structural projects, Emergency Services, Recovery Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #3 Relocate all above ground power lines from in front of Fire Station Station 16-1 Severe weather, Earthquake All PUD 3 General Manager in conjunction with FD #16 Chief TBD (Medium) PUD 3, FEMA Grants (BRIC, HMGP) or DOE Grants Long Term Y Preventive Activities, Emergency Services, Recovery Facility, Local INITIATIVE #4 Improve communications infrastructure between our major hazards and resources. To include WCC, DEM, neighboring fire districts. New, Station 16-1 All All District 16 Chief, and DEM Assessing (High) ARPA Grants, HLS DEM, District Funds Long Term Y Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE #5 Establish a well for Station 16-1. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 6-12 September 2023 Table 6-6 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Object ives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region Station 16-1 All All District 16 Chief, DEM, FEMA Assessing (Medium) BRIC Grants, District Funds Long Term Y Emergency Services, Recovery Facility, Local, County INITIATIVE #6 Seek grant funding to complete the quarters at the Brockdale Fire Station New All All District 16 Chief High BRIC, Fire Grants Long-Term N All Local INITIATIVE #7 Seek grant funding to construct a structure in the Skokomish Valley. New All All District 16 Chief High BRIC, Fire Grants Long-Term N All Local 6.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 6-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative. Table 6-7 Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 1 4 H L Y Y Y H 2 All H H Y Y Y H 3 All H M Y Y N M 4 All H H H Y N M 5 All M M Y N Y M 6 All H H Y Y N H FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 September 2023 Table 6-7 Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 7 All H H Y Y N H a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 6.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES FD #16 has made no progress on any of the action items identified in the 2018 HMP Annex due to staffing shortage and funding. As such, all items are brought forward to the 2023 update. 6.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY We will need to work with DOC/WCC in the near future to further understand their specific needs in the event of a disaster of consequence. Bridgeview Consulting 7-1 September 2023 CHAPTER 7. MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX 7.1 INTRODUCTION This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Mason County Fire District 4, a participating special purpose district to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by Fire Protection District 16. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as an update to the district’s previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1. 7.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT Mason County Fire District #4 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County’s Planning Team, the Mason County Fire District 4 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated. Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Gregory C. Rudolph 2970 SE Arcadia Rd. Shelton, WA. 98584 Telephone: 360.426.7222 grudolph@masonfire4.com Fire Chief Primary Point of Contact Attend meetings, provide local data to planning partnership. Gather pertinent information from stakeholders from within district boundaries to complete annex. Lisa Brengan 2970 SE Arcadia Rd. Shelton, WA. 98584 Telephone: 360.426.7222 lbrengan@masonfire4.com Office Manager Alternate Point of Contact Assist with information collection to facilitate the development of the annex template and to attend meetings if the primary contact is unable to attend. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-2 September 2023 7.3 DISTRICT PROFILE Mason County Fire Protection District No. 4 consists of a 52 square mile area in southern Mason County serving an approximate population of 8500, bordering Thurston County to the south and the city of Shelton to the north, the Puget sound to the east and additional Mason County fire districts to the west. District #4 maintains a total of seven stations, three of the stations are staffed depending on resources available. The district employs a full-time Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, and an Office Manager which make up the administrative team. Line staff consists of three career Captains, six career firefighters, six part time firefighters and ten volunteer firefighters. The District provides an all-hazard service to the citizens including but not limited to fire suppression, rescue and emergency medical services, technical rescue, hazardous materials response, and wildland/urban interface protection. The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: • Governing Authority— The district is governed by an elected board of three fire commissioners. • Population Served—8500 as of 2023 • Land Area Served—52 square miles • Value of Area Served—The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is $1,348,826,301.00 • Land Area Owned—5.71 acres. • List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: 3 Fire Engines $3.0M 2 BLS Aid units $750K 3 Brush Engines $500K 2 Command Units $200K 2 Tender/Pumpers $1.5M • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment—The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $5.95M • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Station 41 $1,480,423.00 Station 42 $87,173.00 Station 43 $100,872.00 Station 45 $111,920.00 Station 46 $915,166.00 Station 47 $90,660.00 • Total Value of Critical Facilities—The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is $2,786,214.00 FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 7-3 September 2023 • Current and Anticipated Service Trends—Over the last five years Mason County Fire District 4 has had an increase in call volume of 26 percent with very little change in funding or staffing. Call volumes are expected to increase with the available land in south Mason County for residential and commercial use secondary to the close proximity to Thurston County. Population has increased steadily since 2020 and we expect it to continue as more people move from urban areas to rural areas such as Mason County. We have seen a 19 percent increase in call volume in the southern end of the district that borders Thurston County and with our geographical location near the I5 corridor I would expect a projected increase in call volume with a potential spike coming in the next 3 to 5 years. The district’s boundaries are shown on in the map provided below. Figure 7-1 Fire District #4 Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-4 September 2023 7.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that are unique to the special purpose district. Table 7-1 identifies the hazards of concern. The District has no specific dollar loss information at this time. Table 7-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Winter Storm 4650 12/26/21- 1/15/22 Unknown Severe Winter Storm 4593 12/29/20- 1/16/21 Unknown Severe Storm 4539 1/20/- 2/10/2020 Unknown Pandemic 4481 1/20/20 – Present Unknown Severe Winter Storm 4418 12/10-24/2018 Unknown Flood 4253 12/1/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4269 11/12/2015 Unknown Severe Storm 4056 1/14/2012 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008 Unknown Flood 1817 1/6/2009 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1734 12/1/2007 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1682 12/14/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1641 1/27/2006 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1499 10/15/2003 Unknown Earthquake 1361 2/28/2001 Unknown Flood 1172 3/18/1997 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 1159 12/26/1996 Unknown FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 7-5 September 2023 Table 7-1 Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Incident Dollar Losses Impacting District (if known) Severe Storm(s) 1079 11/7/1995 Unknown Severe Storm(s) 981 1/20/1993 Unknown Flood 883 11/9/1990 Unknown Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown Flood 612 12/31/1979 Unknown Flood 492 12/13/1975 Unknown Flood 414 1/25/1974 Unknown Earthquake 196 5/11/1965 Unknown Flood 185 12/29/1964 Unknown 7.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction’s capabilities with respect to preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events and incidents. Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections: regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs. The following codes, ordinance, policies or plans which are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan or support hazard mitigation planning efforts are identified as follows: Fire District Capabilities: • Emergency Operations Plan • Emergency Procedures and Policies • County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-6 September 2023 • State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan • National Response Framework • National Incident Management System • Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service) • WAC 296.305 • Response Plans General Capabilities: • Specific incident response plans • Operations plans or policies • Employee Handbooks and Safety Manuals • Mutual Aid Agreements • Continuity of Operations Plan 7.5.1 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the district’s administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 7-2. These are elements which support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Table 7-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices (building officials, fire inspectors, etc.) Yes These services are provided through the County or from Mason Fire 4. Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes These services, when necessary, may be contracted or provided by County. Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes The county provides this service Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Through County and State resources. Emergency Manager Yes The County provides this service. Grant writers No Available through local resources or contracted. FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 7-7 September 2023 Table 7-2 Administrative and Technical Capability Supporting Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Available (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning program, etc.?) No County public works can provide signage available for use for warning systems; also County communications programs support the District as needed for warning and broadcasts. Hazard data and information available to public Yes Hazard maps developed through this process are available on the County’s website for review. Specific equipment response plans. Yes Provided through the county and local jurisdictions Specific operational plans. Yes Provided through the county and local jurisdictions Education and Outreach Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on emergency preparedness? Yes CERT teams trained with citizens throughout the County and within the City of Shelton Firewise Groups? No There are limited groups which currently exist within areas of the County; however, this is a strategy addressed within the countywide strategies. Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Yes Fire prevention programs in schools and Stop the Bleed courses. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues? Yes Skokomish watershed groups addressing flood potential within the watershed areas. Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The County regularly provides seasonal awareness programs via its website, safety fairs, Twitter accounts. On-Going Mitigation Efforts Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other vegetation management No Chipper program Yes Through State DNR Defensible space inspections program No Address signage for property addresses Yes Mason FD #4 has an address sign program Other Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-8 September 2023 7.5.2 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the District’s fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-3. These are the financial tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities. Table 7-3 Fiscal Capability Available to Support Mitigation Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Other 7.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The district’s classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-4. Each of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are indicated accordingly. Table 7-4 Community Classifications Participating (Yes/No) Protection Class 6 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule County - 3 Storm Ready Yes - County Firewise No Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NA FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 7-9 September 2023 7.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district’s Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified the hazards that affect the Mason County Fire District 16. Following the same process identified in the base plan, Table 6-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by past occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following classifications: □ Extremely Low – No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to essential services. □ Low (Negligible) – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential services. □ Medium (Limited) – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential services. □ High (Critical) – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited delivery of essential services. □ Extremely High (Catastrophic) – Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month. Table 7-5 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk (Impact to Structures and/or Service Area) 1 Earthquake 3.60 High Major roadway and infrastructure damage including older fire stations that are not retrofitted to current standards. 2 Severe Weather 3.50 High High wind events impacting travel through the region and district that contains three State Highways. 3 Wildfire 3.10 High Loss of natural resources having an economic impact on the local and regional economy Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-10 September 2023 Table 7-5 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking Hazard Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Vulnerability Rank Description of Risk (Impact to Structures and/or Service Area) 4 Flood 2.90 High Shutting down access/egress routes to roadways and thoroughfares 5 Landslides 2.45 Medium Shutting down access/egress routes to roadways and thoroughfares 6 Drought 2.20 Medium Increasing weather extremes and increased severe weather with an impact on wildland fire season. 7 Climate Change 1.15 Low Increasing weather extremes and increased severe weather with an impact on wildland fire season. 7.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 7.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 6-6 lists the action items/strategies that make up the district’s hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. FIRE DISTRICT #16 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX Bridgeview Consulting 7-11 September 2023 Table 7-6 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Object ives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region INITIATIVE # 1 Seek out grant or other funding sources to construct a new fire station to support emergency operations and to be used as a resilience center and shelter location in the event of natural disaster or weather -related emergency. New All All Mason County Fire District 4 Chief High HUD, BRIC, HMGP, Long Term All Mason County Fire District 4 High INITIATIVE # 2 Add water storage at multiple stations that currently have wells throughout the district to enhance firefighting capabilities for wildland and structural fires. New Wildfire All Mason County Fire District 4 Chief Medium SAFER Grants, HMGP, District Funds Short Term No Property Protection, Emergency Services, Natural Resource Protection Local, County, Region INITIATIVE # 3 Improve the communications infrastructure to enhance interoperability between other agencies such as Squaxin Tribe, DEM, Law Enforcement, etc. New All All Mason County Fire District 4 Chief Medium FEMA or HLS Grants, District Funds Long Term No Emergency Services, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection Local, County, Region INITIATIVE # 4 Create a public education plan that would include classes, publication, and signage to raise the level of knowledge in the community about the current hazards, such as wildland fires, earthquakes, powerline awareness, etc. New All All Mason County Fire District 4 Low DEM. FEMA Grants,, Tribal Grants, District Funds Short Term No Public Information, Preventive Activities Local INITIATIVE # 5 Institute a regional Mobile Integrated Health Program with Physician Associate program to deliver health care more effectively in a rural community. Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Bridgeview Consulting 7-12 September 2023 Table 7-6 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Object ives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost (High/ Medium/ Low) or $ Figure if Known Sources of Funding (List Grant type, General Fund, etc.) Timeline (Long- Term, Short- Term) Included in Previous Plan? Yes/No Initiative Type: Public Information, Preventive Activities, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery, Natural Resource Protection Who or What Benefits? Facility, Local, County, Region New All All Mason County Fire District 4 Chief Medium Hospital District, Squaxin Tribe, District Funds Long Term No Preventive Activities, Emergency Services, Public Information Local and Regional 7.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified action item was conducted. Table 6-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative. Table 7-7 Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Initiative # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 1 All H H Y Y N H 2 All H H Y Y N H 3 All H M Y Y N M 4 All H H Y Y N M 5 All H H Y Y N H a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. Mason County 2023 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes APPENDIX A. LINKAGE PROCEDURES TO THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN A-1 APPENDIX A. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE Not all eligible local governments within Mason County are included in the Mason County 2023 Multi- Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. It is assumed that some or all of these non-participating local governments may choose to “link” to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act. In addition, some of the current partnership may not continue to meet eligibility requirements due to a lack of participation as prescribed by the plan. The following “linkage” procedures define the requirements established by the Planning Committee for dealing with an increase or decrease in the number of planning partners linked to this plan. It should be noted that a currently non-participating jurisdiction within the defined planning area is not obligated to link to this plan. These jurisdictions can elect to do their own “complete” plan that addresses all required elements of 44 CFR Section 201.6. INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE Eligible linking jurisdictions are instructed to complete all of the following procedures during this time frame: • The eligible jurisdiction requests a “Linkage Package” by contacting the Point of Contact (POC) for the plan: Name: Tammi Wright Title: Emergency Management Coordinator Address: 100 Public Works Drive City, State ZIP: Shelton, WA Phone: (360) 427-9670 x800 e-mail: tammiw@masoncountywa.gov The POC will provide a linkage packages that includes: – Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan. – Planning partner’s expectations package. – A sample “letter of intent” to link to the hazard mitigation plan update. – A Special Purpose District or City template and instructions. – Catalog of Hazard Mitigation Alternatives. – A “request for technical assistance” form. – A copy of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44, the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), which defines the federal requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan. • The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the hazard mitigation plan update, which includes the following key components for the planning area: – The planning area risk assessment Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-2 – Goals and objectives – Plan implementation and maintenance procedures – Comprehensive review of alternatives – County-wide initiatives. Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the template and instructions provided by the POC. Technical assistance can be provided upon request by completing the request for technical assistance (TA) form provided in the linkage package. This TA may be provided by the POC or any other resource within the Planning Partnership such as a member of the Planning Team Committee or a currently participating City or Special Purposes District partner. The POC will determine who will provide the TA and the possible level of TA based on resources available at the time of the request. • The new jurisdiction will be required to develop a public involvement strategy that ensures the public’s ability to participate in the plan development process. At a minimum, the new jurisdiction must make an attempt to solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset of this linkage process and a minimum of one public meeting to present their draft jurisdiction specific annex for comment, prior to adoption by the governing body. The Planning Partnership will have resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy such as the Plan website. However, it will be the new jurisdiction’s responsibility to implement and document this strategy for incorporation into its annex. It should be noted that the Jurisdictional Annex templates do not include a section for the description of the public process. This is because the original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy that covered the planning area described in Volume 1 of the plan. Since new partners were not addressed by that strategy, they will have to initiate a new strategy, and add a description of that strategy to their annex. For consistency, new partners are encouraged to follow the public involvement format utilized by the initial planning effort as described in Volume 1 of the plan. • Once their public involvement strategy is completed and they have completed their template, the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to the POC for a pre- adoption review to ensure conformance with the Regional plan format. • The POC will review for the following: – Documentation of Public Involvement strategy – Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions – Chosen initiatives are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of the hazard mitigation plan update – A designated point of contact – A ranking of risk specific to the jurisdiction. The POC may utilize members of the Planning Committee or other resources to complete this review. All proposed linked annexes will be submitted to the Planning Team for review and comment prior to submittal to State Emergency Management. APPENDIX C. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN A-3 • Plans approved and accepted by the Planning Team will be forwarded to Washington State Emergency Management for review with a cover letter stating the forwarded plan meets local approved plan standards and whether the plan is submitted with local adoption or for criteria met/plan not adopted review. • Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) will review plans for federal compliance. Non-Compliant plans are returned to the Lead agency for correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with annotation as to the adoption status. • FEMA reviews the new jurisdiction’s plan in association with the approved plan to ensure DMA compliance. FEMA notifies new jurisdiction of results of review with copies to Washington State EMD and approved planning authority. • New jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to Washington State EMD through the approved plan lead agency. • For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan (if not already accomplished) and forwards adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead agency and Washington State EMD. • FEMA regional director notifies new jurisdiction governing authority of plan approval. The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the regional plan with the commitment from the new jurisdiction to participate in the ongoing plan implementation and maintenance. DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First, a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can gain eligibility. A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire in writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to pursue this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act. After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both Washington State EMD and FEMA in writing that the partner in question is no longer covered by the hazard mitigation plan update, and that the eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this notification. The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation requirements specified in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided to each partner at the beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified within Volume 1 of the plan. Each partner agreed to these terms by adopting the plan. Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether a partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters: Mason County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2023) Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-4 • Are progress reports being submitted annually by the specified time frames? • Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact? • Are the partners supporting the Planning Team by attending designated meetings or responding to needs identified by the body? • Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners expectations package provided to them at the beginning of the process? Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the planning area. Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of participation: • The POC will advise the Planning Team of this pending action and provide evidence or justification for the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual progress reports, failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Planning Committee, failure to act on the partner’s action plan, or inability to reach designated point of contact after a minimum of five attempts. • The Planning Team will review information provided by POC, and determine action by a vote. The Planning Committee will invoke the voting process established in the ground rules established during the formation of this body. • Once the Planning Team has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall also clearly identify the ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be given 30 days to respond to the notification. • Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above. • Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership, they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies identified by the POC. This action plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Team to determine whether the actions are appropriate to rescind the action. Those partners that satisfy the Planning Team’s review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required. • Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions have to be initiated more than once in a 5 year planning cycle. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 1 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Cover Page The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool (PRT) demonstrates how the local mitigation plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR § 201.6 and offers states and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the local governments, including special districts. 1. The Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet is a worksheet that is used to document how each jurisdiction met the requirements of the plan elements (Planning Process; Risk Assessment; Mitigation Strategy; Plan Maintenance; Plan Update; and Plan Adoption). 2. The Plan Review Checklist summarizes FEMA’s evaluation of whether the plan has addressed all requirements. For greater clarification of the elements in the Plan Review Checklist, please see Section 4 of this guide. Definitions of the terms and phrases used in the PRT can be found in Appendix E of this guide. Plan Information Jurisdiction(s) Mason County, City of Shelton, Central Mason Fire & EMS, PUD 1, PUD 3, West Mason Fire, Mason County Fire District #4 Title of Plan Mason County 2023 Hazard Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation New Plan or Update Update Single- or Multi-Jurisdiction Multi-jurisdiction Date of Plan 5/30/2023 Local Point of Contact Title EM Coordinator Project Manager Agency Mason County Emergency Management Address 100 Public Works Drive, Shelton, WA 98584 Phone Number (360) 427-9670 x800 Email tammiw@masoncountywa.gov Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 2 Additional Point of Contact Title Consultant/Lead Project Planner Agency Bridgeview Consulting, LLC Address 915 N. Laurel Lane, Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone Number 253-380-5736 Email bevodea@bridgeviewconsulting.org Review Information State Review State Reviewer(s) and Title Kevin Zerbe, State Mitigation Strategist State Review Date 7/06/2023 FEMA Review FEMA Reviewer(s) and Title Carrie Martin, CERC Planner; Joseph Green, FEMA Community Planner Date Received in FEMA Region 7/25/2023 Plan Not Approved Click or tap to enter a date. Plan Approvable Pending Adoption 8/23/2023 Plan Approved Click or tap to enter a date. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 3 Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet # Jurisdiction Name Requirements Met (Y/N) A. Pl a n n i n g Pr o c e s s B. Ri s k As s e s s m e n t C. Mi t i g a t i o n St r a t e g y D. Pl a n Ma i n t e n a n c e E. Pl a n Up d a t e F. P l a n Ad o p t i o n G. S t a t e Re q u i r e m e n t s 1 Mason County N Y N 2 City of Shelton Y Y Y 3 PUD 1 Y Y Y 4 PUD 3 N Y Y 5 Central Mason Fire & EMS Y N Y 6 Mason County FD #4 Y N Y 7 West Mason Fire – FD #16 Y N Y 8 9 10 Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 4 Plan Review Checklist The Plan Review Checklist is completed by FEMA. States and local governments are encouraged, but not required, to use the PRT as a checklist to ensure all requirements have been met prior to submitting the plan for review and approval. The purpose of the checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the plan by element/sub-element and to determine if each requirement has been “met” or “not met.” FEMA completes the “required revisions” summary at the bottom of each element to clearly explain the revisions that are required for plan approval. Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is “not met.” Sub-elements in each summary should be referenced using the appropriate numbers (A1, B3, etc.), where applicable. Requirements for each element and sub-element are described in detail in Section 4: Local Plan Requirements of this guide. Plan updates must include information from the current planning process. If some elements of the plan do not require an update, due to minimal or no changes between updates, the plan must document the reasons for that. Multi-jurisdictional elements must cover information unique to all participating jurisdictions. Element A: Planning Process Element A Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met A1. Does the plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(1)) A1-a. Does the plan document how the plan was prepared, including the schedule or time frame and activities that made up the plan’s development, as well as who was involved? Volume 1 Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 (pg. 2-1 to 2-9); Volume 1 Section 2.6 (particularly Table 2-3) (pg. 2-10 to 2-24); Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Ch. 1 Planning Partner Participation (pg. 1-1 to 1-7) Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 5 Element A Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met A1-b. Does the plan list the jurisdiction(s) participating in the plan that seek approval, and describe how they participated in the planning process? Section 2.3, Table 2-1; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Ch. 2 though Ch.7, Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact Met A2. Does the plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(2)) A2-a. Does the plan identify all stakeholders involved or given an opportunity to be involved in the planning process, and how each stakeholder was presented with this opportunity? Section 2.4 (pg. 2-3 to 2-9) including Table 2- 2 Met A3. Does the plan document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(1)) A3-a. Does the plan document how the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the planning process and how their feedback was included in the plan? Section 2.6 (pg. 2-10 to 2-24) forward and Page 2-12 Met A4. Does the plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(3)) A4-a. Does the plan document what existing plans, studies, reports and technical information were reviewed for the development of the plan, as well as how they were incorporated into the document? Section 2.5 (pg. 2-9 to 2-10); Ch. 4 through 11 (hazard profiles); Ch. 13. NFIP data incorporated in 7.2.1 FEMA Flood Maps (pg.7-15 to 7-17). Met ELEMENT A REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: None. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 6 Element B: Risk Assessment Element B Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met B1. Does the plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction? Does the plan also include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(i)) B1-a. Does the plan describe all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area, and does it provide the rationale if omitting any natural hazards that are commonly recognized to affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area? Executive Summary p. xii; Section 4.2.1; Sections 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1 Met B1-b. Does the plan include information on the location of each identified hazard? Sections 5.2.1, 6.1, 6.2.1, 7.2.1, 8.2.1, 9.2.1, 10.1, 10.2.1 Met B1-c. Does the plan describe the extent for each identified hazard? Sections 5.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 7.2.1, 8.2.1, 9.1, 9.2.1, 10.1, 10.2.1 Met B1-d. Does the plan include the history of previous hazard events for each identified hazard? Chapter 3, Section 3.3; Sections 5.2.2, 6.2.2, 7.2.2, 8.2.2, 9.2.2, 10.2.2; Volume 2, Sections 2.4, 3.4, 4.3, 5.4, 6.4, 7.4 Met B1-e. Does the plan include the probability of future events for each identified hazard? Does the plan describe the effects of future conditions, including climate change (e.g., long-term weather patterns, average temperature and sea levels), on the type, location and range of anticipated intensities of identified hazards? Chapter 3, Section 3.3 (Table 3-2) on pg. 3-8; Sections 4.3, 5.2.4, 5.3.7, 6.2.4, 6.3.7, 7.2.4, 7.3.7, 8.2.4, 8.3.7. 9.2.4, 9.3.7,10.2.4, 10.3.7 Met B1-f. For participating jurisdictions in a multi‐jurisdictional plan, does the plan describe any hazards that are unique to and/or vary from those affecting the overall planning area? Section 4.2.1 Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 7 Element B Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met B2. Does the plan include a summary of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability and the impacts on the community from the identified hazards? Does this summary also address NFIP-insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(ii)) B2-a. Does the plan provide an overall summary of each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the identified hazards? Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 9.4=5, 9.6, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5,10.6, Ch, 11; Volume 2, Sections 2.8, 2.13, 3.7, 4.6, 5.7, 6.7,7.7 Met B2-b. For each participating jurisdiction, does the plan describe the potential impacts of each of the identified hazards on each participating jurisdiction? Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 9.4=5, 9.6, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5,10.6, Ch, 11; Volume 2, Sections 2.8, 2.13, 3.7, 4.6, 5.7, 6.7,7.7 Met B2-c. Does the plan address NFIP-insured structures within each jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? Section 7.1.5; Volume 2, Section 2.6 Met ELEMENT B REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: None. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 8 Element C: Mitigation Strategy Element C Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met C1. Does the plan document each participant’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)) C1-a. Does the plan describe how the existing capabilities of each participant are available to support the mitigation strategy? Does this include a discussion of the existing building codes and land use and development ordinances or regulations? Ch. 3, Section 3.7 (pg. 3-20 to 3-24); Ch. 13 (13-1 to 13-14); Table 12-7 (pg. 12-31); Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Sections 2.7, 3.5, 3.6, 4.4, 4.5, 5.5, 5.6, 6.5, 6.6, 7.5, 7.6 Met C1-b. Does the plan describe each participant’s ability to expand and improve the identified capabilities to achieve mitigation? Ch. 3, Section 3.7 (pg. 3-20 to 3-24); Ch. 13 (13-1 to 13-14); Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Sections 2.5-2.7, 3.5, 3.6, 4.4, 4.5, 5.5, 5.6, 5.12, 6.5, 6.6, 7.5, 7.6, Table 12-13 Met C2. Does the plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C2-a. Does the plan contain a narrative description or a table/list of their participation activities? Section 3.7; Chapter 7, Section 7.1.5, Section 7.3.1, Section 7.4; Table 13-1; Section 13.2 Met C3. Does the plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(i)) C3-a. Does the plan include goals to reduce the risk from the hazards identified in the plan? Executive Summary p. xv for confirmation of previous goals and relationship to Community Lifelines, CRS; Chapter 12, Section 12.1.1 Goals; Volume 2, Section 2.9. Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 9 Element C Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met C4. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C4-a. Does the plan include an analysis of a comprehensive range of actions/projects that each jurisdiction considered to reduce the impacts of hazards identified in the risk assessment? Chapter 12, Section 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.8; Volume 2, Section 2.10, Section 3.9, Section 4.8, Section 5.9, Section 6.9, Section 7.9 Met C4-b. Does the plan include one or more action(s) per jurisdiction for each of the hazards as identified within the plan’s risk assessment? Table 12-2, Table 12- 3; Volume 2, Section 2.10, Section 3.9, Section 4.8, Section 5.9, Section 6.9, Section 7.9 Met C5. Does the plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including a cost-benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) C5-a. Does the plan describe the criteria used for prioritizing actions? Section 12.6, 12.7, 12.9, Table 12-6; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Ch. 1 Prioritization and Benefit-Cost Review (pg. 1-4 to 1-5) Met C5-b. Does the plan provide the position, office, department or agency responsible for implementing/administrating the identified mitigation actions, as well as potential funding sources and expected time frame? Chapter 12, Tables 12-2 and 12-3; Section 12.9; Volume 2, Section 2.10, Section 3.9, Section 4.8, Section 5.9, Section 6.9, Section 7.9 Met ELEMENT C REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: None. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 10 Element D: Plan Maintenance Element D Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met D1. Is there discussion of how each community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(iii)) D1-a. Does the plan describe how communities will continue to seek future public participation after the plan has been approved? Section 2.6.2, Section 2.6.3; Section 14.3 Met D2. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle)? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(i)) D2-a. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to track the progress/status of the mitigation actions identified within the Mitigation Strategy, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible for the process? Chapter 14, Section 14.1, Appendix C Met D2-b. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to evaluate the plan for effectiveness? This process must identify the criteria that will be used to evaluate the information in the plan, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible. Chapter 14, Section 14.1; Appendix C Met D2-c. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to update the plan, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible for the process? Chapter 14, Section 14.1 Met D3. Does the plan describe a process by which each community will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(ii)) D3-a. Does the plan describe the process the community will follow to integrate the ideas, information and strategy of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms? Section 14.2; Table 12-2, Action CW-23; Action C-13; Action C- 16 Met D3-b. Does the plan identify the planning mechanisms for each plan participant into which the ideas, information and strategy from the mitigation plan may be integrated? Section 14.2; Table 12-2, Action CW-23; Action C-13; Action C- 16 Met D3-c. For multi-jurisdictional plans, does the plan describe each participant's individual process for integrating information from the mitigation strategy into their identified planning mechanisms? Section 14.2; Table 12-2, Action CW-23; Action C-13; Action C- 16; Volume 2, Sections 2.7, 3.5, 4.4 Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 11 Element D Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met ELEMENT D REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: None. Element E: Plan Update Element E Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met E1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3)) E1-a. Does the plan describe the changes in development that have occurred in hazard-prone areas that have increased or decreased each community’s vulnerability since the previous plan was approved? Chapter 3, Section 3.7 Met E2. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities and progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3)) E2-a. Does the plan describe how it was revised due to changes in community priorities? Executive Summary, The 2023 Mason County Plan Update – What Has Changed, pg. xii; Introduction, 1.5 Scope and Plan Organization (pg. 1-3); Planning Process Met E2-b. Does the plan include a status update for all mitigation actions identified in the previous mitigation plan? Executive Summary, Progress Report of 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan, pg. xvi- xvii; Chapter 12, Tables 12-2 and 12-3; Volume 2, Sections 2.12, 3.11, 4.10, 5.11, 6.11 Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 12 Element E Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met E2-c. Does the plan describe how jurisdictions integrated the mitigation plan, when appropriate, into other planning mechanisms? Executive Summary, Progress Report of 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan, pg. xvi- xvii; Chapter 13 - Capability matrix identifies other planning mechanisms within each annex template; Chapter 14, Section 14.2 identifies integration. Met ELEMENT E REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: None. Element F: Plan Adoption Element F Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met F1. For single-jurisdictional plans, has the governing body of the jurisdiction formally adopted the plan to be eligible for certain FEMA assistance? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(5)) F1-a. Does the participant include documentation of adoption? Chapter 1.4, Plan Adoption, pg. 2 Not Met F2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has the governing body of each jurisdiction officially adopted the plan to be eligible for certain FEMA assistance? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(5)) F2-a. Did each participant adopt the plan and provide documentation of that adoption? Chapter 1.4, Plan Adoption, pg. 2 Not Met Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 13 Element F Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met ELEMENT F REQUIRED REVISIONS Required Revision: Mason County Plan will enter Approved Pending Adoption Status until a formal adoption letter is received. All participating jurisdictions MUST adopt plan in order to be included as a participant in good standing. Element G: High Hazard Potential Dams (Optional) HHPD Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met HHPD1. Did the plan describe the incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information for HHPDs? HHPD1-a. Does the plan describe how the local government worked with local dam owners and/or the state dam safety agency? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD1-b. Does the plan incorporate information shared by the state and/or local dam owners? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD2. Did the plan address HHPDs in the risk assessment? HHPD2-a. Does the plan describe the risks and vulnerabilities to and from HHPDs? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD2-b. Does the plan document the limitations and describe how to address deficiencies? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD3. Did the plan include mitigation goals to reduce long-term vulnerabilities from HHPDs? HHPD3-a. Does the plan address how to reduce vulnerabilities to and from HHPDs as part of its own goals or with other long- term strategies? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD3-b. Does the plan link proposed actions to reducing long- term vulnerabilities that are consistent with its goals? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 14 HHPD Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met HHPD4-a. Did the plan include actions that address HHPDs and prioritize mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from HHPDs? HHPD4-a. Does the plan describe specific actions to address HHPDs? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD4-b. Does the plan describe the criteria used to prioritize actions related to HHPDs? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD4-c. Does the plan identify the position, office, department or agency responsible for implementing and administering the action to mitigate hazards to or from HHPDs? Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. HHPD Required Revisions Required Revision: Click or tap here to enter text. Element H: Additional State Requirements (Optional) Element H Requirements Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met / Not Met This space is for the State to include additional requirements Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Choose an item. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 15 Plan Assessment These comments can be used to help guide your annual/regularly scheduled updates and the next plan update. Element A. Planning Process Strengths ▪The planning process supported a high level of engagement by keeping record of the team members in attendance and allowing those unable to attend to have an alternate representative. The way the public could address the planning team during meetings also supported a high level of engagement. ▪Involving Native American Tribes on the planning team is a good inclusion of historically disadvantaged communities in the planning process. ▪Presenting the plan to younger populations at the Kiwanis Club and using a number of media and forums to reach out to different groups are good forms equitable outreach. ▪Using survey answers to help guide planning partners in selecting goals, objectives and mitigation strategies is a good integration of public feedback. ▪Reviewing Census data for computer and internet access shows that the public outreach process was thought through and had equity in mind. ▪A good example of plan integration is having each planning partner perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans and ordinances specific to planning area hazards. This supports good multi-jurisdictional planning. Opportunities for Improvement ▪The plan could more explicitly state how outreach activities targeted and brought in underserved populations. ▪In Section 2.3 Planning Partnership, the plan states that “Emergency Management personnel made presentations at various meetings,” and “various meetings were held with the planning partners.” The plan could describe or document the nature of these meetings. ▪In Section 2.4, the plan states that “Non-government stakeholders include[ing] the American Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce, among others,” were invited to participate. It would be helpful to see the complete list of stakeholders that were invited to take part in the process. The list could also be consulted in future plan updates. ▪Table 2-3 includes some of the outreach sessions and planning milestones. Expand on the information in the table to identify the comprehensive tasks during the planning process. Element B. Risk Assessment Strengths ▪The Earthquake map series in Section 6.2.1 does a great job of describing the location and extent of the earthquake hazard in detail. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 16 ▪Using depth grids for the 1-percent-annual chance flood for coastal and riverine areas generated by FEMA is a good inclusion of Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning data. Opportunities for Improvement ▪The maps in Chapter 8 would be more effective if they were digitized and shown in a greater resolution. ▪Future risk assessments may be enhanced by using the updated Hazus 6.0 software to assess risk for earthquake hazards. Element C. Mitigation Strategy Strengths ▪Identifying ongoing efforts to assist in notification and social service programs shows a good understanding of social equity. So does noting its connection to enhanced resilience. Opportunities for Improvement ▪The city of Shelton identified training regarding methods of achieving compliance in existing (older) structures undergoing significant remodel as a way to improve their floodplain management program. Other jurisdictions should consider how they can explicitly evaluate their current capabilities. Jurisdictions can state their gaps and identify future needs to be included in their mitigation strategy. ▪There is a discrepancy in the hazards mitigated by each initiative in Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix tables and the 2023 Status of Previous Hazard Mitigation Strategies. This should be resolved prior to finalizing the plan. Element D. Plan Maintenance Strengths ▪The county intends to keep a website active after the plan’s completion. This will keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates. ▪The county posted risk maps to their website and intends to maintain the maps on its website once this planning process is completed. The final plan will remain on the county’s website over the next five years. This provides an opportunity for the public to review their risk continuously over the life of the plan. ▪There is an explanation of why the previous plan’s maintenance strategy was not successful during the last plan’s lifespan. Continue to identify the successes and challenges with implementing the identified monitoring, evaluating and update efforts in the next plan. Opportunities for Improvement ▪No comment. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide 17 Element E. Plan Update Strengths ▪The plan does an excellent job in discussing what has been updated in the most recent planning process. Highlighting the slight changes in the risk assessment, continuing the plan’s goals with slight adjustments to fit current priorities, and building on the previous plan’s data and information clearly communicates what and how the content was revised. Opportunities for Improvement ▪Clearly visualize any changes in land use with potential vulnerability increase. This can be done by overlaying maps of hazard areas with changes in land use and development. ▪For actions where no progress has been made, the plan could state the barriers to carrying out those actions. It could also describe how those barriers will be removed if the action is carried forward to make sure it is implemented during this plan update. ▪Actions that are routinely implemented become a capability of the plan’s participants rather than a mitigation action to complete. Consider reviewing the actions in the plan to identify if any of the listed projects could be moved to the corresponding participant’s capability assessment. Element G. HHPD Requirements (Optional) Strengths ▪[insert comments] Opportunities for Improvement ▪[insert comments] Element H. Additional State Requirements (Optional) Strengths ▪[insert comments] Opportunities for Improvement ▪[insert comments]