CITY OF PUYALLUP HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Transcription

1 CITY OF PUYALLUP HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2 2/7/2013 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..E-1 SECTION 1 PROCESS SECTION 2 PROFILE SECTION 3 CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION SECTION 4 RISK ASSESSMENT 4-1 SECTION 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION 6 INFRASTRUCTURE 6-1 SECTION 7 MAINTENANCE..7-1 Appendices Plan Adoption.....A Planning Team..B Plan Revisions.. C

3 PUYALLUP HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY My heart s been warmed by watching the best in people come out when disaster strikes. But my heart s been broken by seeing the pain I knew could have been prevented. --James Lee Witt Contents INTRODUCTION... 2 PUYALLUP PLAN GOALS... 3 READER S GUIDE TO THIS PLAN... 4 CONCLUSION... 7 HAZARD RATING CHART AND MITIGATION MATRIX... 7 Chart 1 Puyallup Hazard Ratings... 8 Table 1 Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matrix CITY OF PUYALLUP RESOLUTION Introduction The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) has been the impetus for the development of this mitigation plan. Passed in October of 2000 as Public Law to reduce the growing demand for federal disaster assistance, it provides a blueprint for state and local jurisdictions to implement natural hazard mitigation planning. The local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for PAGE ES - 1 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4 decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. CFR TITLE 44, Chapter I, Part 201, Sec FEMA defines hazard mitigation as those actions taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people, property, the social infrastructure, or the environment from hazards and their effects. Hazard mitigation planning, then, is the process of determining the best means of reducing or eliminating the property damage and the loss of life. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by, among other things, adding a new section, 322 Mitigation Planning. Section 322 places new emphasis on mitigation planning. It requires local governments to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of receiving Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program funds. 44 CFR Part 201 outlines the key responsibilities of local governments in carrying out section 322. The regulatory directive included in the Federal Statement of Purpose, under 44 CFR subpart (b) states: The purpose of mitigation planning is for State, local, and Indian tribal governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce losses from those hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide range of resources. Historically the City of Puyallup has achieved some success in mitigating the damage from future disasters. The movement of many City facilities over the past few years from the downtown area, built on soils susceptible to earthquake damage and threatened by potential lahars from Mt. Rainier, to the South Hill area is a major step in the right direction. The inclusion of seismic, volcanic and landslide problems in the City s Comprehensive Plan ten years ago shows a determination to include them in the general planning for the City. The City has implemented innovative approaches to disaster mitigation, ranging from the Critical Areas Regulations to the formation of citizens trained to respond locally to problems in their community through the formation of Neighborhood Emergency Teams. Yet there remains much to be done. The Puyallup Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (referred to as the City Plan or the Plan ) embodies the City s commitment to its citizens safety and presents a progressive vision for preventing the disasters that threaten this region. During the past three decades, the greater Pierce County area has experienced 18 federally declared disasters and numerous other emergencies caused by natural hazards. Almost everyone has directly affected the City of Puyallup. Hazard mitigation is an essential part of breaking this disaster cycle. To that end the City has in the past passed the Critical Areas ordinance. Currently the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and including a more PAGE ES - 2 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

5 complete coverage of the natural hazards within that plan. This will reduce the city s vulnerability to natural hazards and create a more disaster-resistant community. Puyallup s development of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was given to the Emergency Management Response Team, a committee composed of staff members from the City s departments that would have a major role in emergency or disaster response and recovery. The committee began with the mission statement from the City s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan: The mission of the City of Puyallup Emergency Management Program is to protect lives and property through preparedness and mitigation activities, effective response to emergencies and disasters associated with natural, environmental and human-caused hazards, and coordination and participation in the recovery effort as a result of such events. Utilizing this mission statement and combining it with other material the team developed goals for the plan. Puyallup Plan Goals The Plan Goals are the basis for the development and implementation of mitigation measures and explain what the City seeks to achieve through the year 2009 and in some cases beyond. The goals listed in the plan are compatible with other goals put forth by the City. They are based on findings of the risk assessments, represent a long-term vision for hazard reduction or enhancement of mitigation capabilities, and fall within federally identified mitigation categories. The Plan Goals describe the overall direction that Puyallup and its citizens can take to work toward mitigating risk from natural hazards. These Goals are stepping-stones between the broad direction of the Plan purpose and the specific recommendations outlined in the subsequent mitigation measures. The Goals are to: Save lives and reduce public exposure to risk; Reduce or prevent damage to public and private property; Reduce the vulnerability of the City's economy to disaster; Reduce adverse environmental or natural resource impacts; Improve community understanding of the particular hazards that threaten the City, and the mitigation measures available to reduce vulnerability to those hazards; and Provide continuous review of mitigation plans. Reader s Guide to This Plan In order to ensure compliance with DMA 2000in particular 44 CFR 201.6and to assist the City of Puyallup, the Washington State plan reviewers, and FEMA Region X reviewers, the PAGE ES - 3 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

6 relevant federal requirements are placed on each section s cover page. The reader can expect to find each stated requirement within the section that follows it. This provides the reader a quick reference of the method of organization and compliance of the City s Plan to the federal requirements. It will also facilitate the public s or general reader s understanding of federal guidelines and how the City seeks to function in accordance with these guidelines. The Plan is comprised of seven major sections: a Process Section; a Profile Section; a Capability Assessment Section; a Risk Assessment Section; a Mitigation Strategy Section; a Critical Facilities Section, and; a Plan Maintenance Section. The Process Section summarizes the development process for the City s Plan. It covers such topics as the process of the plan preparation, participation, meetings, information sources, and public involvement documentation. The Plan is developed around several major components as identified in 44 CFR These components include an ongoing Public Involvement Process, a Jurisdiction Profile, a Capability Identification, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, a Mitigation and Implementation Strategy, and finally a section on Plan Maintenance Procedures. The Process Section describes how the development of these major components came about. The Profile describes the City and is broken up into six categories which include: Geography, Geology, Climate, History, Demographic, and the Economy. The Capability Identification summarizes the City s capabilities relative to natural hazard mitigation. This includes the Legal and Regulatory Capabilities, Political, Fiscal, and Administrative Capabilities, and Technical Capabilities available to the City with regards to implementing mitigation measures. This does not include just those available within City government. Rather it includes those available from outside sources both of funding and technical assistance. The Risk Assessment portrays Puyallup's risks and vulnerabilities, and is organized by natural hazard type to address the following hazards: earthquake, volcanic, windstorms, severe storms, flood, and landslide. Each hazard is defined through an identification description, a profile, and a vulnerability description. Initially each hazard identified in the City s Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis was evaluated. A comparison of the hazards was completed and scored. The final result included six hazards that were considered enough of a hazard to be included in the mitigation plan. They include in order of risk: Earthquake - The City is most vulnerable to earthquakes, sustaining damage from historic earthquakes in 1949 (7.1), 1965 (6.5), and 2001(6.8). All three of these were deep earthquakes which sustain less damage than similar sized earthquakes located closer to the surface. Puyallup is at risk from these shallower earthquakes as well as large Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes located off the Washington Coast which may be PAGE ES - 4 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

7 as large as (9.0). Currently the US Geological Survey is mapping the Tacoma Fault which is known to run below western Pierce County possibly as far as Puyallup. Volcanic - Mt. Rainier, dominating Pierce County s southeastern corner, is one of five active volcanoes in Washington State. Over the past years the volcano has inundated the area currently occupied by Puyallup's downtown with lahars, multiple times. Due to the population within the lahar inundation zone the mountain is regarded as one of the most hazardous in the world. Windstorm - Windstorms tied with volcanic with the second highest rating among the hazards affecting Puyallup. Damage has occurred not just from the major storms like the Columbus Day storm of 1962 that claimed 48 lives and damaged over 50,000 buildings in the Pacific Northwest, or from the Inaugural Day Storm in 1993, but also from the wind that is received nearly every year in Puyallup. Severe Storm - The City s severe storms hazard includes snow and ice or freezing rain storms. Population growth and development on higher land on south hill in particular increases the vulnerability to this hazard. Flooding - Flooding is the cause of most of the disaster declarations in Puyallup, with the events causing the most damage. While flooding is not the hazard most threatening to the City it has caused problems over the years. Beginning with the levee construction in 1906 the threat of flooding along the Puyallup River was reduced. However, there is still a threat from flooding along Clarks Creek as well as storm drainage problems from blocked culverts in the low areas to the east of downtown. The Army Corps of Engineer has de certified the levees due to channel in fill and National Weather Service has lowered the flood from 31.6 feet to 26.2 feet at the Puyallup gauge. Landslides The potential for landslides has been recognized in Puyallup for years. Most of the problem occurs along the hill which separates South Hill from Downtown Puyallup. While the City s vulnerability to landslides is not great, it is increasing over time. The lack of building sites easy to develop gradually moves people into those areas that are more marginal, meaning along the steeper slopes. Associated with this is the fact that landslides are also associated with earthquakes. A large earthquake in the Puget Sound basin could generate landslides, damaging property and a portion of the City s infrastructure. Because of these vulnerabilities, Puyallup is moving into the future with the intention of reducing the impacts of disasters through mitigation. Within this plan the City employs a multifaceted approach towards breaking the disaster cycle, including development and land use regulations, public education campaigns, structural projects, and warning systems. This Plan represents the next step as Puyallup seeks increased coordination and effectiveness of its mitigation activities. PAGE ES - 5 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

8 The Mitigation Strategy is based first upon Puyallup s mitigation goals and then builds on the risk assessment and capability identification. The measures are then broken down by the hazard they attempt to address and then prioritized within each hazard category with the multi-hazard mitigation measures given their own category. The next step in the prioritization process is to break it down by what group or organization might be the impetus for enacting the program. Here there are three main groups. The first of these is the Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF). The HMF attempts to address mitigation measures that pass across jurisdictional lines. Implemented by Pierce County the HMF is an attempt to develop projects that are too wide ranging or large to be implemented by one jurisdiction. The second includes those measures to be directly supported or initiated by the Emergency Management Action Team (EMAT). They include planning, modifying facilities, mapping and any other mitigation project implemented within the City directly affecting the City s facilities, infrastructure, or protects the citizens and public and private property. The third includes all public education programs relating back to safety and preparedness of both the general population and City staff. Once these categories are determined, the next step in the prioritization process is to look at each measure and determine its ranking by need, ease of implementation, funding determinations, cost-effectiveness, goals addressed, and long-term sustainability within the City. The Critical Facility Section provides a mitigation plan for each of the facilities deemed critical to the City s operation during the first 72 hours following a disaster. The Critical Facilities Section is an optional section of the plan. This section was developed in order to make the Plan a more comprehensive blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in its risk assessment. The products of this process are the Critical Facility Mitigation Plans. Each facility s plan includes a profile, vulnerability assessment, and for many, one or more mitigation strategies. The critical facilities are organized into three ownership categories: City Owned, Contracted with for Emergency Shelter and Not Owned or Controlled by the City. This creates a more effective and efficient structure for developing each facility s mitigation plan in that the categorization centers on the implementing authority. In each group a rating system of High, Medium, and Low is used to rank each facility based on how necessary it is to the City in the aftermath of an emergency or disaster. The last section, the Plan Maintenance Section, acts as a guide for implementing the hazard mitigation strategy, detailing the formal process that will guarantee the Puyallup Plan remains an active and relevant document. The Plan Maintenance Procedures describes: the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Puyallup Plan within a five-year cycle; how Puyallup intends to incorporate the outlined mitigation strategies into existing Puyallup mechanisms, and; a process to integrate ongoing public participation throughout the plan maintenance. PAGE ES - 6 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

9 Conclusion The charge of this plan, of this City, is to protect its citizens from those aspects that, unseen, threaten its very continuity. As the City grows, so too does its vulnerability. New growth and changing patterns of use modify its vulnerability, and new scientific research clarifies the risks. Puyallup s Mitigation Plan is an attempt to move forward, paying closer attention to the natural hazards that, in the future, could adversely affect the City. The continued growth of population, expansion of the City through annexation, and the increasing knowledge of natural hazards and their affect on the City all point to the need for a plan to mitigate those hazards. Yet in conjunction with this is the need to maintain sustainable development, economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social well-being. Over the next five years as the City works to carry out this plan, it will find that some of the measures may be too costly. They may not be able to be financed. They may involve political capital that cannot be adequately compensated for, or further analysis may show some of them will take too much time and energy to be cost effective. These are issues that will be sorted out as the City works to implement the plan. From answers to these problems future mitigation plans will be developed. This first mitigation plan will lay the groundwork for those to follow. Hazard Rating Chart and Mitigation Matrix The following chart and table are a summation of the natural hazard risks and mitigation measures proposed for the City of Puyallup. Chart 1 shows the perceived vulnerability and risk the City faces from the natural hazards that have affected the area in the past and could affect it in the future. The Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matrix (Table 1) lists each measure by hazard, and states the implementation mechanism, agency (ies) and/or department(s) responsible, implementation timeline, and the mitigation goals addressed. PAGE ES - 7 CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

10 Chart 1 Puyallup Hazard Ratings PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

11 *The Total Hazard Risk Score (the gray shading) is a result of multiplying the sum of the individual vulnerability scores by the probability score. PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

12 Table 1 Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matrix Plan Goals Addressed Mitigation Measure Lead Department(s) /Agency(ies) Timeline (years) Multi-Hazard Startup 1 Existing Mitigation Actions Puyallup Ongoing Pierce County Natural Hazard 1 PC DEM, EMAT 1-2 Mitigation Forum HMF 2 NOAA All Hazards Radio Program Puyallup DEM DEM 5 3 LIDAR Mapping Project LIDAR Consortium Ongoing N/A EMAT 1 Plan Maintenance Puyallup Ongoing Hazard Mitigation Planning 2 Coordination EMAT Immediate City Clerk, I.T.& 3 Essential Records Protection Communications 1 Response and Recovery Information Development Services, 4 Collection GIS 2 5 Critical Facilities: Auxiliary Power Parks and Recreation 3 6 City of Puyallup Recovery Plan EMAT/Puyallup DEM 5 PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

13 7 Preventative Maintenance Plan: Departments active in disaster response & 1-2 recovery actions 8 Shelter Development PDEM,Parks & Recreation Ongoing 9 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan EMAT, Puyallup DEM 5 10 Capability Identification and Evaluation Finance 4 N/A 11 Hazard Disclosure Statement EMAT, Legal 5 12 Underground Utilities Development Services Local utility providers Ongoing Plan Goals Addressed Lead Department(s) Timeline Mitigation Measure /Agency(ies) (years) 13 Risk Assessment: Hazard Modeling PDEM; USGS; FEMA 3 Public Education 1 CERT & NEDS Puyallup DEM Ongoing Public Education Campaigns: PDEM, Puyallup 2 Ongoing PostDisaster, All Hazards Preparedness Fair Public Education Campaigns: All 3 Puyallup DEM Ongoing Hazards Puyallup Preparedness Fair SBA; PC DEM; Puyallup DEM; Puyallup Chamber Pre-Disaster Business Mitigation Loan of Commerce; PC 4 5 Program Historically Underutilized Businesses Program (HUB) PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

14 5 Public Education: Hazard Insurance Information Insurance Industry, Puyallup DEM 1-2 Earthquake Puyallup DEM, Pierce HMF 1 Puyallup Citizen Corps Co.DEM Ongoing Puyallup Development 1 Critical Facilities: Seismic Evaluation Services 5 EMAT Non-Structural Retrofitting Policies for Parks & Recreation / City 2 Remodel Projects Departments 5 3 ShakeMaps Puyallup GIS USGS 3 Public Education 1 Earthquake Home Retrofit Program; Puyallup Preparedness Fair Puyallup DEM ; Vendor support Group Ongoing Public Education Volcanic Hazard 1 Public Education: Lahar Puyallup DEM Ongoing Public Education: Education for Self Ongoing 2 Puyallup Dem Warning and Evacuation Plan Goals Addressed Mitigation Measure Lead Department(s) /Agency(ies) Timeline (years) 3 Public Education: Evacuation Routes Puyallup DEM Ongoing 4 Public Education: Volcanic Ashfall Puyallup DEM Ongoing Windstorm PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

15 EMAT 1 Tree maintenance Program Public Education 1 Public Education: Windstorms, Community Outreach Parks & Recreation, Development Services, Puget Sound Energy Ongoing Puyallup DEM Ongoing Public Education 1 Public Education: Severe Storms, Community Outreach Severe Storms Puyallup DEM Ongoing Flood HMF 1 Natural Resource Protection Development Services Ongoing EMAT 1 2 Response: Emergency Resource Maintenance Floodplain Regulation: Limit Development 3 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Surface Water Reduction: Control Standards Surface Water Reduction: Absorbent Building Material Surface Water Reduction: Low Impact Developments Development Services Ongoing Development Services Ongoing Development Services, FEMA Ongoing Development Services 4 Development Services 5 Development Services 5 Plan Goals Addressed Mitigation Measure Lead Department(s) /Agency(ies) Timeline (years) PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

16 Public Education 1 Public Education, Community Outreach: Flood Puyallup DEM Ongoing EMAT 1 Risk Assessment: Landslide Evaluation of Developments Landslide Development Services, Soil Conservation Service 5 HMF = Hazard Mitigation Forum EMAT = Emergency Management Action Team Public Education = Programs from a variety of sources PAGE ES CITY OF PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

17 City of Puyallup Resolution PAGE ES PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

18 PAGE ES PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

19 PAGE ES PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

20 (This Page intentionally left blank) PAGE ES PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

21 PAGE ES PUYALLUP NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

22

23 SECTION 1 PLAN PROCESS Contents REQUIREMENT... 2 INTRODUCTION... 3 PLAN PROCESS... 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS... 3 HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE... 5 Table 1-1 Hazard Mitigation Committee (EMAT members)... 5 HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS... 6 PUBLIC COMMENT... 6 PIERCE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION FORUM... 6 Table 1-2 Hazard Mitigation Forum... 6 Table 1-3 Public Meetings Hosted by the PDEM to Receive Public Comment... 8 ELECTED OFFICIAL S MEETINGS... 8 PROFILE PROCESS... 8 CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION PROCESS... 9 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS... 9 MITIGATION STRATEGY PROCESS Table 1-4 City Mitigation Strategy Matrix INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY PROCESS DEFINITION IDENTIFICATION Table 1-5 City of Puyallup 2005 Critical Facility Mitigation Measure Matrix PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS ENDNOTES... 24

24 Plan Process Requirement PAGE 1-1 Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. PAGE 1-2

25 Plan Process Introduction This Mitigation Plan update is intended to be a stand-alone plan for the City of Puyallup, unlike the 2004 plan which was an addendum to the Pierce County Mitigation Plan. Puyallup terminated its inter-local agreement with Pierce County in The City had been seeking a greater number of options and support services for its emergency planning, including more preplanning services. For this reason, the City has prepared its City of Puyallup Hazard Mitigation Plan. The format of the plan is based on the information contained in the 2004 Addendum, which has been narrowed down to address the scope of the City of Puyallup. This plan, coupled with output from new HAZES analysis model runs, associated mapping, and updated census information, provides the foundation for the City s new stand-alone 2010 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Plan Process The Puyallup Hazard Mitigation Plan represents the City s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, and serves as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. This Plan will also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. The Process Section of this Plan provides a discussion of the planning process used to develop the City of Puyallup Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section addresses the process used to prepare the Plan, and identifies that technical, agency, and public participants in that process. The Plan is developed around all major components identified in 44 CFR for local mitigation planning, including: Public Involvement Process Jurisdiction Profile Capability Identification Risk Assessment Mitigation Strategy Infrastructure Plan Maintenance Procedure Below is a summary of those elements and the processes involved in their development. Public Involvement Process Public participation is a key component to strategic planning processes. Citizen participation offers citizens the opportunity to voice their ideas, interests, and opinions, and provides valuable input to the planning process. In order to accomplish this goal and to ensure that the final updated City of Puyallup Hazard Mitigation Plan comprehensively addresses community concerns, the City developed a participation process that included two components: 1. A Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) comprised of knowledgeable City departmental representatives to develop the plan in coordination with the Puyallup Department of Emergency Management Team (PDEM); PAGE 1-3

26 Plan Process 2. Public meetings to identify common concerns and ideas regarding hazard mitigation and to discuss specific goals, objectives, and implementation measures of the mitigation plan. In addition, as drafts of the Plan became available, they were posted on the City s website for the public to review. This section discusses each of these components in further detail below with departmental participation outlined in each. Integrating public participation into the development of the Plan has helped to ensure an accurate depiction of the Puyallup s risks, vulnerabilities, and mitigation priorities. PAGE 1-4

27 Plan Process Hazard Mitigation Committee The Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) also known as the Emergency Management Action Team (EMAT) is a standing committee that was organized and met throughout the The individual City departmental representatives have an understanding of the portion of the City Plan containing their specific agencies, including how residents, businesses, infrastructure, and the environment may be affected by all hazard events. The majority of the HMC members are experienced in past and present mitigation activities, and represent those entities through which many of the mitigation measures would be implemented. The HMC guided the update of the Plan, assisted in updating goals and measures, identified stakeholders, and shared local expertise to create a more comprehensive plan. See Table 1-1 for a list of HMC (i.e., EMAT) members. Table 1-1 Hazard Mitigation Committee (EMAT members) NAME TITLE CITY DEPARTMENT / JURISDICTION Merle Frank Director PDEM Carolyn Cockrum Coordinator Oct to present PDEM Coordinator Rob Andreotti Public Works Director Development Services Dalan Brokaw Police Captain Police Department Donna Harris Admin Sec. & Training Assistant Police Department Tim Hannah Communications Center Manager City Communication Mark Creley Communications Center Asst. Mgr City Communication Radcliffe McKenzie Battalion Chief Central Pierce Fire & Rescue Amy Jackson Support Specialist Central Pierce Fire & Rescue Glenda Carino Public Relations, PIO City Administration Dick Webber Recreation Manager Shelter Manager Parks and Recreation Jennifer Recco GIS Coordinator Geographic Information Services Nancy Eklund Senior Planner Development Services/Planning Hazard Mitigation Committee Meetings The HMC held 10 meetings between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011, and have continued to meet during Each meeting presented the opportunity to discuss, review, and evaluates the Plan. Meeting dates include the following: January 13, 2010 February 10, 2010 March 3, 2010 April 4, 2010 May 12, 2010 June 9, 2010 October 8, 2010 November 10, 2010 December 8, 2010 January 12, 2011 February 9, 2011 March 9, 2011 April 13, 2011 May 4, 2011 June 8, 2011 PAGE 1-5

28 Plan Process Public Comment PDEM coordinated the Plan process among the various participating City departments. The HMC used the City Hazard Mitigation Forum distribution list to notify other jurisdictions about the Plan status and updates. This distribution list is provided in Table 1-2 below. Pierce County Hazard Mitigation Forum Pierce County held a forum and invited all jurisdictions that should have mitigation plans to attend the meeting. Members attending had or needing updates to their exciting plans. Pierce County conducts the planning forum to coordinate all jurisdictional planning efforts. Pierce County and FEMA representatives review the planning process and updated requirements for all jurisdictions as well as regional projects and actives. These are the current members of the Hazard Mitigation Forum listed below. Table 1-2 Hazard Mitigation Forum Jurisdiction or Organization City of Bonney Lake Pierce County Fire District #3 City of Puyallup Pierce County Fire District #14 City of Roy Pierce County Fire District #17 City of Sumner Pierce County Fire District #22 City of Tacoma City of University Place City of Buckley City of DuPont Firgrove Mutual Water Company Bethel School District Clover Park School District Sumner School District City of Edgewood Graham Fire & Rescue (PCFD #21) City of Fife Ashford Fire District (PCFD #23) City of Fircrest Anderson Island Fire District (PCFD #27) PAGE 1-6

29 Plan Process Jurisdiction or Organization City of Gig Harbor Orting Fire District (PCFD #18) City of Lakewood Lakewood Fire District (PCFD #2) City of Milton Gig Harbor Fire & Medic One PCFD #5) City of Orting Central Pierce Fire & Rescue (PCFD #6) City of Tacoma Edgewood Fire District (PCFD #8) Town of Eatonville Browns Point Fire District (PCFD #13) Town of South Prairie South Pierce Fire & Rescue (PCFD #15) Town of Wilkeson Key Peninsula Fire District (PCFD #16) Carbonado School District Puyallup Tribe of Indians Dieringer School District Pierce County Eatonville School District American Red Cross Mt. Rainier Chapter Fife School District Clear Lake Water District Franklin Pierce School District Graham Hill Mutual Water Company Orting School District Fruitland Mutual Water Company Pacific Lutheran University Lakeview Light and Power Peninsula School District Lakewood Water District Puyallup School District Mt. View Edgewood Water Company Steilacoom Historical School District Ohop Mutual Light Company Tacoma School District Port of Tacoma White River School District Summit Water and Supply Company University Place School District Valley Water District Town of Ruston Spanaway Water Company Pierce Transit Riviera Community Club Town of Steilacoom Metro Parks Tacoma University of Puget Sound Town of Carbonado Herron Island (HMC) Taylor Bay Beach Club Inc Raft Island HOA Pierce County Fire District #26 Pierce County Fire District #25 Crystal Mountain Inc. Crystal River Ranch Association Crystal Village HOA Cascade Regional Blood Services Dynamic Family Services DaVita Inc Franciscan Health System Group Health MultiCare Health System Community Health Care Western State Hospital The HMC provided opportunities for public comment through an ongoing and open process. Beginning in April 2009, the HMC published information about the process on the Plan on the PDEM Webpage 1 where it notified the public of the process, the progress, and any changes or upcoming meetings. PAGE 1-7

30 Plan Process The HMC held informational public meetings to provide a further opportunity for community input and involvement (see Table 1-3). Representatives from Puyallup EM presented the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirements, the Plan process, the Plan benefits, the Risk Assessment, and Mitigation efforts. The meetings in April and September were advertised in accordance with the City s legal public notice requirements. Table 1-3 Public Meetings Hosted by the PDEM to Receive Public Comment Date Location Time South Conference Room, Puyallup hrs. 8/27/10 Library South Conference Room, Puyallup 9/1/ hrs. Library Public citizens, neighboring Puyallup Pierce College, and community business were invited to attend a public meeting that was held at the City Library meeting room on August 27, 2010 and September 1, Beginning in April 2010, and each month thereafter, documentation was added to the planning website to include the status of the planning efforts of the HMC. Outcome- Pierce County Department of Emergency Management coordinated the initial Hazard Mitigation process for Puyallup Emergency Management. Through their process in 2009 we were able to identify mitigation strategies/actions and address them specific to the City of Puyallup. Throughout the year (2009) PC DEM along with the Hazard Mitigation Committee (made up of local officials and private business in the region) met one-on-one and as a group to determine local natural hazards and prioritize response actions. Through these meetings we were able to receive comments from both the public and private sector and address concerns within our plan. Each month when a meeting took place (as illustrated in the PC DEM Mitigation Plan 2009) public comment was encouraged and requested. Additionally, elected officials meetings were held as part of the review process for review and approval. The City of Puyallup reviewed the original Hazard Mitigation Plan (an annex to Pierce County s HZ Mitigation Plan) and a City Resolution on the matter was first adopted in 2004 and later revised and approved in For a more detailed description of the meeting attendance and outcomes see the Public Comment section (p.1-39) of the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan Puyallup Specific- While Puyallup has always been invested in the Mitigation planning process, public involvement of the citizens of Puyallup is not as strong as we would like. In fact, we had only one person (outside of our local government officials) that attended our public hearings regarding the mitigation plan. We have documentation of that person s visit, comments and our response to her. Since our public outreach efforts are hindered by our limited staff we have identified this as an area of improvement. As part of the next cycle of updates our plan is to build up our capacity to reach audiences with our preparedness message. Elected Official s Meetings A meeting with Puyallup elected officials was held November 15, 2011 as a part of the Plan s pre-adoption review process. As the plan development process finalizes, another meeting with the elected officials will be held to review all comments prior to submitting the plan for approval to Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) and the Federal PAGE 1-8

31 Plan Process Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Once the plans are approved by State EMD and FEMA, the City Council will pass a resolution adopting the Plan. Profile Process The Profile Section of the City of Puyallup Plan covers the entire City and some unincorporated areas where the City provides services. The Profile Section utilizes City data to provide information about the natural and infrastructure characteristics of the jurisdiction. The Profile section addresses the City s demographics, geography, geology, climate, land use, transportation, and economy. Many of the likely natural hazards affect will impact all aspects of the City s functions economic, governmental, natural, and social. Information for this section was gathered from City documents, the City s Comprehensive Plan, and internet research, as appropriate. Capability Identification Process The Disaster Mitigation Act 2000 requires a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. For the purposes of this Plan, these elements are referred to as capabilities and their review and incorporation as a capability identification. The 2004 Plan that preceded the 2008 Region 5 Hazard Plan, which was the foundation for this Plan, provided greater detail on mitigation capabilities, and some of these have been incorporated and summarized in this Plan because they are relevant. The City has received funding for Mitigation Plan Updating ($46,000) from the Washington State Department of Emergency Management. In addition, the City has also been successful at acquiring funding up to $168,000 from other state and federal agencies and tribal governments to install river flow monitoring equipment for public alert purposes, as well as for local drainage studies. Recently, the City was also informed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that a northbound steel bridge structure in the City was failing (SR 161/167 Puyallup River Bridge) and weight limitations placed on it affected emergency response, day to day transportation and commerce. The City, working with the State, has expedited its replacement which is anticipated in The other bridges in the city which have weight restrictions are the 5 th Street Milwaukee Bridge and the Valley Avenue Bridge Viaduct. The Valley Avenue Bridge is being considered structural upgrades and the 5 th Street Milwaukee Bridge is being planned for total replacement. In 2010, flood tubes were installed around the Puyallup Treatment plant to protect the City waste water treatment plant. During a recent flooding event, they were deployed at the water plant, as well as on a major transportation route that was threatened by waters cresting a levee until the levee could be repaired. PAGE 1-9

32 Plan Process Risk Assessment Process The Risk Assessment Section of the Plan incorporates City data in order to represent the risks that the City currently faces. The City used the same hazard identification process used in the City of Puyallup Comprehensive Emergency Plan. The 2004 Plan addressed the following 7 natural hazards: Earthquake, Flood, Volcanic, Severe Storms, Landslide, and Wildland/Urban Interface Fire. The Plan addresses the following 6 natural hazards: Drought, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, and, Volcano. The 2010 Plan, therefore, addresses six of the seven hazards that were included in the 2004 Addendum. The Severe Storms hazard described in the 2004 Plan is essentially the same as described in the 2010 Severe Weather hazard Plan discussion. An important element of the revised hazard identification includes the incorporation of several major natural hazard events that have occurred since the Plan was adopted in 2004 including: DR-1671-WA, November Flooding and Severe Weather, DR-1682-WA, December Windstorm, DR-1734-WA, December Flooding and Severe Weather, November 11 th 2008 Flooding, DR-1817-WA, December Flooding and Severe Weather, and DR1825-WA, December Record Snow and Severe Cold. These events provide documentation that offers new information on the City s natural hazards threats. Based on new hazard information, 2 natural hazards have increased their overall risk to the City, the earthquake hazard and the flood hazard. Since 2004, new scientific information has lead to a better understanding on each hazard. The earthquake hazard has increased due to refined information on the Tacoma Fault Zone, which has lead to a greater vulnerability and consequences for the City of Puyallup. The flood hazard has increased due to a new City-Wide Flood Hazard Map that shows a larger area of the City in flood hazard areas. Various methodologies are available to facilitate the risk assessment. A common approach was needed to enable the setting of mitigation priorities both within and among all participants. The HMC developed a framework that assesses risk as a function of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. An addition to this Mitigation Plan update is the Repetitive Flood Loss information as required in the newest revision to DMA The City has begun to track repetitive flood loss properties, to monitor those properties through each flood event, and to prioritize those properties as part of the County s future flood buy-out program. Mitigation Strategy Process The Mitigation Strategy Section includes a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the hazards identified in the Risk Assessment. The Section identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of each hazard. In 2004 the City Plan goals were identified as the following: Protect Life and Property Ensure Emergency Services Increase Public Preparedness Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation Preserve or Restore Natural Resources Promote A Sustainable Economy PAGE 1-10

33 Plan Process Because cooperation is essential to many of the mitigation measures, the HMC felt it was essential to have comparable goals with the region. The following goals were established by the emergency Management Action Team in 2004: Save lives and reduce public exposure to risk; Reduce or prevent damage to public and private property; Reduce the vulnerability of the City's economy to disaster; Reduce adverse environmental or natural resource impacts; Improve community understanding of the particular hazards that threaten the City, and the mitigation measures available to reduce vulnerability to those hazards; and Provide continuous review of mitigation plans. In 2005, many hazard mitigation measures were identified for implementation. The following table provides a summary of the status of the 2004 Hazard Mitigation Measures. The progress on each measure is documented. If a measure is incorporated in the Plan, it is noted in the last column of Table 1-4. This allowed the HMC to concentrate their review and development of those strategies and infrastructure to be carried forth for the next 5 years. Three of the groups or mechanisms responsible for implementation listed in this table (HMF = Hazard Mitigation Forum; HMC = Hazard Mitigation Committee; and PE = Public Education) are described further in related mitigation measures, as well as in the Plan Maintenance Section. The following plans, studies and reports have been incorporated into this mitigation plan and are the main sources of technical information and hazard specific data. Pierce County DEM Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009 wapiercecounty.civicplus.com/documentcenter/view.3520 Strategic planning Vulnerable Hazard Area Maps Hazard Identification Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan 2008 State Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Mitigation Strategies Puyallup Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Hazards (natural & man-made) Regional Profile Maps Puyallup Hazard Identification Vulnerability Analysis Economic Data Land Use Geography, Geology & Climate Annual threats and historical disaster data- potential for disaster, human costs and economic costs Puyallup COMP Plan 1/plans-codes-standards/ PAGE 1-11

34 Plan Process HAZUS 2010 Puyallup Land Use contracts/city Municipal Codes o Critical Lands Ordinance 2004, 2009 FEMA fema.gov Growth Management Act Flood Insurance Rate Maps HAZUS -Hazus is used for mitigation and recovery as well as preparedness and response. Government planners, GIS specialists, and emergency managers use Hazus to determine losses and the most beneficial mitigation approaches to take to minimize them. Hazus can be used in the assessment step in the mitigation planning process, which is the foundation for a community's long-term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Being ready will aid in recovery after a natural disaster. PAGE 1-12

35 Plan Process Table 1-4 City Mitigation Strategy Matrix Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? ALL HAZARD Startup Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF) Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) Existing Mitigation Actions PDEM Ongoing Plan Maintenance PDEM Ongoing Mitigation Analyst PDEM 1-2 The City Natural Hazard Mitigation Forum Hazard Mitigation Committee Capability Identification and Evaluation Property Acquisition Program: Selection Process PDEM 1-2 The City 1-2 PDEM 1-2 Parks and Recreation Surface Water Management; PDEM the City has made use of many existing programs and capabilities: Land Use Regulations, Capital Fac. Plan, etc. the Plan was adopted. Other parts of this proved to be too difficult to maintain without the full time help which was not funded. NO this position was not funded although several people work on mitigation plans An initial 16 members of the City HMF Coordinated with the Pierce County HMF. All current partners in the HMF were invited to several meetings held over the past two years. this committee does exist and has been active especially after local disasters to come together and discuss courses of action for the City and citizens. NO the City did not do the evaluation, but we know our capabilities and have used our capabilities in past years. NO - this strategy does not seem to add anything of value to the plan as written. NO completed. NO it is not likely that this position would be funded. this is a worthwhile group to encourage and facilitate and the City will continue to be involved in this effort. this committee will continue to meet however the bi-annual is too ambitious and will be changed to annually in the next version. NO capabilities already known and documented. 1-2 as funding ability exists. focused on hazard mitigation. PAGE 1-13

36 Plan Process Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Staff EMAT Response and Recovery Information Collection Essential Records Protection Public Works Department; PDEM; GIS; Local Fire Districts; American Red Cross; Tacoma- Pierce County Health Department City Clerk s Office; IT; PDEM Recovery Plan PDEM 5 NO - Priority next year damage assessment process is developed and in use. the IT department has developed and put into place a policy and procedure for essential records protection, offsite storage, and data backup. IT looking at policy for back-up. NO completed. this will be an ongoing measure and there is more to do. need to continue to work on this. It is a vital piece of the process. Hazard Mitigation Committee Preventive Maintenance Plan: PDEM Communications Division Critical Facilities: Auxiliary Power Critical Facilities: Access Limitation Evaluation PDEM the radio communications conducts weekly and monthly checks on the DEM radio equipment in the EOC and bi-annual preventive maintenance on base stations and infrastructure related to our DEM radio systems. Facilities Management 5 - Auxiliary power is available PDEM; Facilites Management new Security Manager assigned & charged to look at limiting access to critical facilities. vital to maintain all equipment for communications. Yes more facilities will have auxiliary power as needed. continuing policy development. PAGE 1-14

37 Plan Process (HMC) Staff EMAT Critical Facilities: Response Considerations Police Department; Fire Districts 1-2 a great deal of work has been done on the planning side of this measure, but more needs to be accomplished on the actual logistical side. more work required on this mitigation measure. Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Critical Facilities: Water and Sewer Requirements Critical Facilities: Fire Stations All-Hazard Mitigation Plan LIDAR Mapping Project Ortho-Based Hazard Mapping Risk Assessment: Hazard Modeling City Facilities Strengthening Project Underground Utilities Development Services 1-2 PDEM; Fire Districts 1-2 PDEM 5 PDEM; GIS; LIDAR Consortium in emergency situations now the EOC orders specific equipment or supplies as needed. see City of Puyallup Mitigation Plan and other planning efforts. NO but work has been done under Homeland Security Plan requirements just not to the methodology of this plan. NO completed. NO this action is complete. Ongoing has been done for the City lowlands. NO - completed. IT; GIS; PDEM 2 - have started, adding dimension to maps. NO completed. we still need to expand the threats to include man-made. PDEM; USGS; FEMA 5 have Hazus software used for this plan s update Development Services 5 NO Most buildings built to EQ code NO - Most buildings built to EQ code. PDEM; Local utility providers 5 through encouraging providers and many City providers already have programs in place as we discovered in the City of Puyallup effort. we will continue to encourage this action every chance we get. PAGE 1-15

38 Plan Process Shelter Evaluation PDEM 1-2 we have done extensive work on sheltering program; have 4 shelters and are dedicated to developing the plan, policies and training. - Ongoing Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Citizen Participation Public Education Campaigns: All Hazards Public Education Campaigns: Post- Disaster, All Hazards NOAA All Hazards Radio Program Public Education: Hazard Insurance Information Disaster Response and Recovery Procedures: The City Aging and Long Term Care Plan PDEM PDEM PDEM PDEM; Insurance Industry Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1-2 PDEM 5 we do extensive outreach in the community to provide relevant information about all hazards to the City, including flood, earthquake and volcano hazards. We also do neighborhood canvassing with materials regarding flooding, and utilize Explorer Scouts to deliver Puyallup Phone Alert information. tremendous amount of work done after flooding in Installed 3 river monitoring equipment. worked with schools to get radios into use, also some jurisdictions have special programs now for citizens. Puyallup is a Storm Ready community. NO Puyallup Storm water staff provide a website listing current and future conservation and low impact development projects. Completed 12/2007, and to be reviewed annually. this needs to be ongoing. always room to improve and needs to be ongoing. need to continue this program. needs to be a continuing effort. NO completed. PAGE 1-16

39 Plan Process Earthquake HMC Critical Facilities: Seismic Evaluation Non-Structural Retrofitting Policies for Remodel Projects Development Services; Various City Departments Development Services ; PDEM 5 the majority have been completed. NO critical facilities are completed. 5 - the PDEM facility was designed and constructed to incorporate non structural retrofitting. NO this is ongoing as remodels occur. Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Shake Maps PDEM; USGS 5 USGS leading the effort. NO - completed. Citizen Participation Public Education (PE) The City s Citizen s Corps Earthquake Home Retrofit Program PDEM; American Red Cross Ongoing DEM has coordinated the efforts to protect childcare facilities. continue to work with Red Cross or do some of this on our own. City of Puyallup Ongoing Have the program, just no activity. will address other areas of need in the City. Flood HMF Natural Resource Area Protection Preventative Maintenance: Flood Control Infrastructure New Construction: Flood Control Infrastructure Development Services 5 NO Issue extremely controversial, not moving forward. Development Services Ongoing NO incomplete, ongoing. ongoing. Development Services 5 NO incomplete, ongoing. ongoing. NO - Issue extremely controversial, not moving forward. PAGE 1-17

40 Plan Process Hazard Mitigation Committee/ Puyallup River Basin Repetitive Loss Properties Transportation Routes: Alternative Routes Coordination with other local cities and towns FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Development Services 5 NO incomplete, ongoing. - as resources is available. Development Services 5 No incomplete. NO - planning is conducted annually but no resources are dedicated to task. Development Services Ongoing ongoing. NO standard procedures. Development Services; IT; FEMA Ongoing Project Prioritization Development Services 5 Floodplain Regulation: Limit Development NO - incomplete, maps currently being updated by FEMA. - completed, but needs to be updated regularly. awaiting updated maps. NO completed. Development Services Ongoing - reviewed in Between 2004 and 2008 NO completed, but will continue as policy. Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Floodplain Regulation: Mitigation of Development Surface Water Reduction: Financial Incentives Surface Water Reduction: Control Standards Development Services Ongoing Development Services 5 Development Services 5 Floodplain Ordinance most recently updated in credit program is in place, requires regular updating. currently being updated, but as Department of Ecology standards change, standards control is reevaluated. NO- completed. NO completed. NO completed - ongoing PAGE 1-18

41 Plan Process Capital Facilities Plan by Basin Public Education Surface Water Reduction: Absorbent Building Material Response: Water Programs Emergency Resource Maintenance Response: Emergency Monitoring and Communication System Development Services; Engineering; PDEM; Development Services Development Services 5 Ongoing NO Voluntary Program. Received some grant funding for pilot projects. Program has net been used as expected.. complete, but continued coordination with Corps and other resources needed. - continued coordination with USGS; website distribution. Installed river monitors. NO Lack of resources, interest. repair schedule still needs to be completed. NO completed. Setback Levees Development Services 5 NO ongoing. - part of the Capital Improvement Plan. Surface Water current standards met, but further efforts NO Department of Ecology regulations change Reduction: Low Development Services 5 must be made to implement new regulations. constantly Impact Developments Public Education: Flood Development Services Ongoing NO program adopted, but implementation still incomplete. implementation ongoing. Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Volcanic Hazard HMF Evacuation Planning: New Roads and Development PDEM; Development Services 1-2 DEM with transportation consider when new roads are constructed and new development and plan for fire access and evacuation. Evacuation Plans for the Western Washington Fair Plans under way. important program to continue. PAGE 1-19

42 Plan Process Public Education Mt. Rainier closure zones Pierce County; USGS; Mt. Rainier National Park Lahar Flow Control PDEM 5 Public Education: Lahar Public Education: Volcanic Ash fall Public Education: Education for Community Emergency Awareness Warning and Evacuation PDEM; Public Safety 5 Ongoing PDEM; Public Safety 5 PDEM; Public Safety 5 NO this is underway and part of the Mt. Rainier Work Group planning project of which DEM is a lead member. NO some research has been done but nothing completed at this time. Some Valley partners are very interested in pursuing this, but there are major financial constraints. we produce and distribute very specific information on lahar through our Pub Ed Dept. we produce and distribute very specific information on volcanic ash fall through our Pub Ed Dept. as other education items, ongoing and successful program through Pub Ed Dept NO Not part of City role. there is a long history of interest in this and it is being used successfully in Japan. important to maintain this level of public education about lahar. important to maintain this level of public education about volcanic ash. completed. Expanded community outreach presentations to private and public areas. Implementation Mechanism Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Time (years) Status Will the measure be continued in the next version of The Plan? Public Education: Evacuation Routes PDEM; Public Safety 1-2 routes do exist and are signed, and we are at the point of refining and documenting these routes and disseminating to the public. this program is important to continue, to document routes, to practice and produce public educational documents for this. Through presentation with current information to the public w/route maps. PAGE 1-20

43 Plan Process Public Education: Bus Driver Evacuation Training Program PDEM; Puyallup School District 5 The Puyallup School District is conducting a program to the extent possible with our support. NO this is being done on a consistent basis with training each new year for the schools. Severe Storms Public Education Tree Maintenance Program Public Education: Severe Storms PDEM; Development Services; Public Safety 5 PDEM; Public Safety Ongoing This City utilizes citizens to set policy. Problem areas are identified for mitigation of problem trees and brush removal from the rights of way. our Pub Ed activity and CERT do an outstanding job of educating the public on Severe Storms/Power Outages/Flooding on a regular basis. history and statistics have shown this to be very helpful in preventing power outages. this is part of what we do. Landslide HMC Risk Assessment: Landslide Occurrence Map LANDSLIDE WARNING SYSTEM GIS; WA DOE; WA DNR PDEM; USGS 5 5 NO no resources were dedicated to this activity. NO Difficult to proceed without resources. NO landslide areas have been identified, but no funding is available to do landslide-specific public programs or warning systems at this time. we would like to pursue doing more in this area but will still depend on available funding. PAGE 1-21

44 Plan Process Infrastructure Summary Process The Infrastructure Section is an optional element of the local hazard mitigation plan. The HMC determined that this section should be developed in order to make the Plan a more comprehensive blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the Plan s Risk Assessment. The Infrastructure Section is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to RCW Requests for public disclosure of this section or parts thereof should be referred immediately to the City Attorney. Definition The 2004 Planning Team determined that the Plan should follow the new requirements for identifying infrastructure and not solely the critical facility as defined in the 2004 Plan. Therefore, the 2004 Critical Facility section is now characterized as the Infrastructure Section in this update. The reason behind this change is that in 2004 there was a focus on critical facilities. In the last 5 years there has been a transition to looking at the infrastructure the City owns and maintains. The HMC realized that the City can make the biggest impact in the reduction of hazard vulnerability by focusing on what the City can change. Some facilities identified in the 2004 Plan have been carried over to this Plan. Though not all infrastructures identified in the 2010 Plan Update will be considered critical or essential Other infrastructure that is not necessarily critical will play a role in disaster response and recovery. Each City department further identified infrastructure that will be important for the community s welfare, such as sewage treatment plants, roads/bridges, or other infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the City. Identification City departments were asked to identify the infrastructure they wanted added to the Mitigation Plan. A template was created for each department to use in listing their infrastructure. Members of the Planning Team and facility representatives filled out the templates, which in turn were used as a foundation to develop the hazard identification and risk information for given locations. This assessment was intended to rely on the best judgment of the representative about the facility, its environment, and its functioning. Below is a summary of the status of the 2004 Critical Facility Mitigation Measure Process. The progress on each measure is documented. If a measure is incorporated in this Plan, it is stated.

45 PAGE 1-20

46 Plan Process Table 1-5 City of Puyallup 2005 Critical Facility Mitigation Measure Matrix Measure Priority Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Timeline Status Included 2009 Activities Corporate Yard Facility 1. Conduct a Detailed Vulnerability Assessment 2. Conduct a Capability Assessment Development of Central Maintenance Shop Response, Recovery Plan and COOP Further Development of Mitigation Measures Develop Program to Place Utilities Underground 6. Back-up Water Supply 7. MH-Evacuation Plan Development 8. EQ-Improve Fire Suppression Capability 9. EQ-Training Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM 5 years Completed - Back-up power system identified and installed (ongoing). No completed. 5 years Incomplete - Lack of resources (fiscal). No lack of resources. 5 years Completed. No completed. 5 years Incomplete - Lack of resources (fiscal). No lack of resources. Completed. Completed - Currently have 1 month supply for employees. No completed. No completed. Ongoing Completed. Yes ongoing. Completed - Equipment Services Division has fire suppression, the remaining portions of the building have suppression systems. No completed. 5 years Completed. No completed. PAGE 1-24

47 Plan Process Measure Priority Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Timeline Status Included 2009 Activities FL-Maintain Existing On-Site Drainage Storm: Remove Dangerous Trees from Proximity to Fire Station #3 and adjacent to transportation and emergency facilities Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Ongoing Completed - Inspection, then action if needed. Recently updated the SWPP and prepared spill response plan and recovery. Yes ongoing. Ongoing Completed Ongoing. No ongoing policy. Communications Building Multi-hazard: Conduct a Detailed Vulnerability Assessment Multi-hazard: Conduct a Capability Assessment Multi-hazard: Development of Communications Building Response and Recovery Plan Multi-hazard: Further Development of Mitigation Measures Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM Development Services; PDEM 5 years Building in good structural standing. N/A 5 years Building in good structural standing. N/A 5 years Building in good structural standing. N/A 5 years Building in good structural standing. N/A City Hall 1. New Building Development Services 5 years The City Jail Completed - All new hardware and furniture brought into building is secured No completed. PAGE 1-25

48 Plan Process Measure Priority Mitigation Measure Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Timeline Status Included 2009 Activities 1. Volcanic Hazard Response and Recovery Standard Operating Procedure Development Services; Puyallup PD; PDEM Current Completed 2010 Currently developing response procedures in case of volcanic eruption. Includes instructions for maintenance personnel to switch off all HVAC systems, and closing all doors and windows. To reduce effect of ash weighting down on roofs, personnel is to be sent to building roofs to sweep ash off before it settles. Response Plan completed working on Recovery Plan PAGE 1-26

49

50 Plan Process The private Good Samaritan/MultiCare Hospital located in the City was included in the 2004 The City Hazard Mitigation Plan listing of critical facilities. As a private institution, the Hospital develops its own emergency management plan; however they coordinate with the City. The Good Sam/MultiCare Hospital recently completed a major upgrade of their facility and they currently partner with Pierce County, the City, and the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department under a Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant that was started in Plan Maintenance Process In order to test the efficacy of this Plan, the City intends to review and reevaluate the plan at regular intervals, and/or after a major incident. The 2004 Plan had four tiers which included: Public Education, Community Planning, Hazard Mitigation Committee, and the Hazard Mitigation Forum. The three tiers for this Plan include: Public Education, Hazard Mitigation Committee, and the Hazard Mitigation Forum. This decision was made because the Hazard Mitigation Committee has representatives from many City departments making retention of the Hazard Mitigation Forum redundant. The Plan will be initially reviewed and approved through a Pre-Adoption Review process, followed by review by the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) and FEMA. State EMD and FEMA will review the update to the City of Puyallup Hazard Mitigation Plan and approve and/or provide comment as necessary. Once this process is complete, City Council will then formally adopt the Plan. Endnotes 1 This website, hosted by the City of Puyallup is:

51 PAGE 1-24 SECTION 2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Contents MISSION STATEMENT... 2 SERVICES SUMMARY... 2 Table 2-1 City Services... 2 GEO-POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS... 3 Table 2-2 Geo-Political Summary... 3 Map 2-1 City of Puyallup Basemap... 5 DEMOGRAPHICS... 7 Table 2-1 Population,,,... 7 SPECIAL POPULATIONS... 7 Table 2-2 Special Populations... 7 INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY... 7 GENERAL... 7 Table 2-5 Parcel Summary... 7 JURISDICTION INFRASTRUCTURE... 8 Table 2-7 Owned Infrastructure... 8 Map 2-2 City of Puyallup Land Use... 9 ECONOMIC SUMMARY Table Fiscal Summary Table 2-10 Unemployment Rate RESOURCE DIRECTORY LOCAL REGIONAL... 12

52 Jurisdiction Profile NATIONAL ENDNOTES PAGE 2-1 Mission Statement The Mission of the City of Puyallup is as follows: The mission statement of the City is to earn the public trust and deliver quality municipal services for people who live in, work in and visit the growing community that defines the City of Puyallup. Services Summary The City of Puyallup is located in the south central Puget Sound region of Western Washington in Pierce County. The City of Puyallup was incorporated on August 19, As of April 1, 2010, US Census figures indicate the Puyallup population was 37,022, and the City was the twenty-sixth largest city in the state and the third largest in Pierce County. Puyallup is a key gateway through which most evacuation routes run in Pierce County. Puyallup sits eight miles from the Port of Tacoma. Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railways both have active rail service in the Puyallup area hauling containers and general freight. Additionally, Sounder commuter trains transport approximately 60,000 commuters daily from the Puyallup Station, which is located a few blocks north of the downtown Puyallup core. The City of Puyallup provides a wide range of municipal services to all of its population; services not provided by the City are available through interlocal agreements with Pierce County or other jurisdictions or entities. The City provides the following services: Table 2 1 City Services CITY SERVICES Service Available? Service Available? City Council Yes Municipal Court Yes PAGE 2-2

53 Cemetery Yes Parks and Recreation Yes City Elections Yes Parks and Recreation Services Yes City Manager Yes Prosecuting Attorney, Legal Yes Services City Police Department Yes Public Works: Local Yes Improvement Districts Development Services: Yes Public Works: Storm Drains Yes Building Inspection Development Services: Yes Public Works: Streets Yes Comprehensive Planning Development Services: Yes Public Works: Surface Water Yes Engineering Management Development Services: Permitting Yes Public Works: Wastewater Collect & Treatment Yes

54 Jurisdiction Profile CITY SERVICES Service Available? Service Available? Development Services: Yes Public Works: Water Utility Yes Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Emergency Management Yes Radio Communications Yes Hearing Examiner Yes Risk Management Yes Library Yes Senior Activity Center Yes License and Tax Fees Yes Municipal Court Yes Geo-Political Characteristics Table 2 2 Geo Political Summary Jurisdiction Area (sq mi) Elevation Range (ft.) Major Watersheds City of Puyallup White/ Puyallup River Watershed Clark s Creek Watershed Deer Creek Watershed County Pierce Neighboring Cities/Towns/Tribes Bonney Lake Buckley Edgewood Fife Graham Lakewood Milton Orting Pacific Puyallup Tribe Sumner Tacoma Source: Information from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro (7/09). PAGE 2-4

55 Jurisdiction Profile This page is intentionally blank. PAGE 2-5

56 Jurisdiction Profile Map 2 1 City of Puyallup Basemap

57 PAGE 2-5 Jurisdiction Profile This page is intentionally blank.

58 PAGE 2-6

59 Jurisdiction Profile Demographics Table 2 1 Population 1, 2, 3, 4 Jurisdiction Population Population Density (people/sq mi) Population Served Incorporated 40, ,011 Special Populations Table 2 2 Special Populations 5 Jurisdiction Populati on Population 65 Plus M = F = 2,720 4,096 % of Total Population Under 16 M = 7,278 F = 7,209 % of Total Incorporated 40,011 11% 6,816 14,487 28% Infrastructure Summary General Table 2 5 Parcel Summary 6 Jurisdiction # Parcels Land Value Average Land Value Improved Value Average Improved Value Incorporated 12,816 $2,465,931,900 $192,861 $2,957,526,600 $231,309 Jurisdiction Total Assessed Value Average Assessed Value Incorporated $2,957,526,600 $231,309

60 PAGE 2-7 Jurisdiction Profile Jurisdiction Infrastructure The following table shows the overview of infrastructure within the City of Puyallup. The infrastructure is categorized according to the infrastructure sectors as designated by the Department of Homeland Security. This table is intended as a summary only. For further details on Department of Homeland Security infrastructure sectors, please see the Process Section 1. Table 2 7 Owned Infrastructure 7 Infrastructure Number Total Infrastructure 37 Emergency Services 11 Telecommunications 1 Transportation 7 Water 7 Public Health 1 Government 4 Commercial 3 Total Value ($) $261,693,599

61 PAGE 2-8

62 Jurisdiction Profile

63 Map 2 2 City of Puyallup Land Use

64 PAGE 2-9

65 This page is intentionally blank Jurisdiction Profile

66 PAGE 2-10

67 Jurisdiction Profile Economic Summary Table Fiscal Summary 8 Jurisdiction Operating Costs (per month) Operating Budgeted Revenues 9 Operating Budgeted Expenditures 10 Fund Balance as % of Operating Cost Avg. Fund Balance (5 yrs) City of Puyallup $4,332,295 $4,889,075 $4,871, % $54,453,462 Table 2 10 Unemployment Rate 11 Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate City of Puyallup* 9.4% WA State* 9.2% *adjusted seasonally

68 PAGE 2-11 Jurisdiction Profile Resource Directory Local City of Puyallup Government Regional Pierce County PALS Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington (MRSC) Washington State Employment Security National US Census Endnotes 1 Population from Office of Financial Management for Projected Population Change (%) from Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Sept Projected Population Density is based on an assumption of the jurisdiction maintaining the same geographic area and boundaries. It does not consider changes in annexation, district mergers, etc. 4 Projected 2017 Population from Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Sept Information from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro projected for Information from Pierce County GIS application, CountyView Pro projected for Information obtained from Infrastructure Matrix. 8 Information provided by Budget and Finance Department of the City of Puyallup. 11 Washington State Employment Security, Workforce Statistics

69 PAGE 2-12

70

71 SECTION 3 CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Contents REQUIREMENT... 2 LEGAL AND REGULATORY... 3 Table 3-1 Legal and Regulatory... 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY... 4 Table 3-2 Administrative Capability... 4 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY... 6 Table 3-4 Technical Capability... 6 FISCAL CAPABILITY... 7 Table 3-5 Fiscal Capability... 7 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) CAPABILITY NFIP STATUS... 8 COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS)... 8 COOPERATING TECHNICAL PARTNER (CTP)... 8 STORMWATER ENGINEER... 8 NFIP POLICIES... 8 STRUCTURES EXPOSED... 9 CITY FLOODPLAIN PERMIT PROCESS SUMMARY... Requirement Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning Process---Requirements 201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. PAGE 3-1

72 Capability Identification Requirements Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(c): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.] Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance---Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. PAGE 3-2

73 Capability Identification Requirements Legal and Regulatory Table 3-1 Legal and Regulatory Regulatory Tools (Ordinances and Codes) Jurisdiction Capabilities Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Economic Development Element Environmental Element Housing Element Land Use Element Transportation Element Utilities Element Subarea Plans: Downtown Revitalization Plan, South Hill Neighborhood Plan, River Road Corridor Plan City Code Building /Fire Codes Critical Areas Design Standards Shoreline Regulations Site Development Storm Water Regulations Subdivision/Platting Zoning Critical Areas Regulations Flood Hazards Geologic Hazards Landslide Hazards Seismic Hazards Volcanic Hazards City Acquisition Authority Real Estate Disclosure Yes or No PAGE 3-3

74 Capability Identification Requirements Administrative Capability Table 3-2 Administrative Capability Administrative Tools (Agency, Departments, or Programs) Jurisdiction Capabilities Mayor (elected official) City Council (elected officials) City Finance Department City Legal Department Chief of Police (Puyallup Police Department) Community Services Community Action Community Development Cooperative Extension (through WSU) Economic Development Emergency Management Emergency Manager Emergency Medical Services through Central Pierce Fire and Rescue Emergency Management Grants Fund Fire Prevention Services through Family Preparedness Services Radio Communications Fund 911 System Facilities Management Building Improvement Projects Real Estate Excise Tax Capital Improvement Fund Real Property Management - in Special Projects Information Services Geographical Information Services Risk Management Risk Management Workmen s Compensation and Safety Development Services: Planning Building Official Chamber of Commerce City Planning Commission City Website Commercial Fire Safety/Code Inspection Program Yes or No PAGE 3-4

75 Capability Identification Requirements Engineers Fire and Injury Prevention Program Government TV Access Hearing Examiner Lahar Warning System Administrative Tools (Agency, Departments, or Programs) Planners Planning Commission Public Utility Public Works Department Safety Fairs Stream Team Surveyors Regional Capabilities Hazard Mitigation Forum Local Business Districts Local Department of Emergency Management Local Fire Agencies plus Mutual Aid with others Local Hospital Local Law Enforcement Agency and Mutual Aid with others Local Neighborhood Associations Local Neighborhood Emergency Teams (NET) Local Newspapers Local Parks Commission/Board Local Power Companies Local Parent Teacher s Association Neighboring Counties Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Pierce County Fire Chiefs Association Pierce County Neighborhood Emergency Teams (PCNET) Pierce County Police Chiefs Association Pierce County Safe Kids Coalition Pierce County Sheriff s Department Pierce County Animal Rescue Team Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Yes or No PAGE 3-5

76 Capability Identification Requirements Service Organizations Tacoma/Pierce County Health Department Technical Capability Table 3-4 Technical Capability Technical Tools (Plans and Other) Jurisdiction Capabilities After Action Reports of Any Incident Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Comprehensive Plan Continuity of Governmental Services and Operations Plan (COOP and COG) Critical Facilities Plan Economic Development Plan Emergency Evacuation Plan Emergency Response Plan Generator Placement Plan Habitat Plan Hazardous Materials Response Plan Lahar Evacuation Plan National Flood Insurance Program (Puyallup is a Participating Member) Pandemic Flu Plan Pierce County Drainage and Surface Water Management Plan Pierce County Repetitive Flood Loss Plan Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Puyallup River Basin Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan Sewer/Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Storm Comprehensive Plan Regional Capabilities Coordinated Water System Plan Local and Regional Emergency Exercises All Types Fiscal Capability Table 3-5 Fiscal Capability Fiscal Tools (Taxes, Bonds, Fees, and Funds) Yes or No NO Yes or No PAGE 3-6

77 Capability Identification Requirements Jurisdiction Capabilities TAXES: Authority to Levy Taxes BONDS: Authority to Issue Bonds FEES: Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service and Cable Impact Fees for Homebuyers/Developers for New Developments/Homes Local Improvement District (LID) FUNDS: Capital Improvement Project Funds Enterprise Funds (water and power) General Government Fund (Departments) Internal Service Funds Special Revenue Funds Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas Regional Capabilities Cascade Land Conservancy Pierce County River Improvement District National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Capability NFIP Status The City entered the NFIP on August 15 th, The City is in good standing in the NFIP as certified by Washington State Department of Ecology. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) was completed on July 14, Community Rating System (CRS) The City currently does not participate in the CRS. It is the intent and goal of the City to take those steps which are required to as funds and benefits are awarded. We are working with our planning and developing services to adopt the new FEMA flood maps and to become a CRS community and NFIP participate. Our plan is to continue to attend local meetings on the CRS process and education, any and all information on local flooding issues, and continue to educate our community through education and outreach programs on the issues. Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) Entry Date # Policies Insurance in # of Paid Losses Total Losses Force Paid 8/15/ $120,612, $2,729,905 PAGE 3-7

78 Capability Identification Requirements 7/31/ The City is a CTP with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for producing the new City-wide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). The City has been regulating to the preliminary DFIRM data since October 24, 2003 and The City is waiting for FEMA to issue a Letter of Final Determination so that DFIRM can be adopted. In addition our EMAT (Emergency Management Team) was visited by one of our State Farm Insurance Agency Representatives for an informational and educational updates on the Flood Insurance. What is and isn t covered under Flood Insurance. At our Emergency Preparedness Fair s each fall, Insurance representative s and flood experts are available for the citizens to receive free information on Flood Insurance. Stormwater Engineer The City employs a Stormwater Engineer that falls under the direction of the Public Works Department Director. The City intends to provide the opportunity to become a Certified Floodplain Manager to the newly hired Stormwater Engineer as Floodplain Management has been designated a duty of the Stormwater Engineer. NFIP Policies According to the City s latest and official AW-501 (July 31, 2009), there are 396 policies in the City of Puyallup. This number is from FEMA's database. Structures Exposed An update of structure counts in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as part of the City s 2009 CRS Re-Verification and determined that there are 5,022 structures in the SFHA. City Floodplain Permit Process Summary The City created a Potential Flood Hazard coverage by placing a 300 buffer around all mapped flood hazards (FIRM and Preliminary DFIRM) and a 65 buffer around all stream channels. Anytime an application comes to the City for work on a project in a parcel that touches this buffer a review of the flood hazard is triggered. Depending on what is being proposed, the proximity to a flood hazard, the level of knowledge about the flood hazard several permits and actions can be required. A typical activity would be the proposed construction of a single family residence. Once triggered as being within the Potential Flood Hazard Area the site will need a floodplain determination to review the known hazard and if there is a published Base Flood Elevation-BFE. If there is a BFE at the site the applicant will be required to have a professional land surveyor map the location of the 1% Annual Chance flood boundary on the property. PAGE 3-8

79 Capability Identification Requirements If the survey shows there is ground out of the floodplain for the project it will be required to be built on the high ground. If there is no high ground then the project may continue if it is not in one of the three Floodways the City regulates (FEMA, Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) or Deep and Fast Flowing (DFF)) and they can provide all necessary mitigation (i.e. compensatory storage, elevation, habitat assessment, zero rise, no conveyance loss, etc..). The structure will be required to obtain a FEMA elevation certificate before the foundation is poured (to ensure compliance while corrections are less expensive) and at finished construction. At each permit phase City Planning Development Engineering s Certified Floodplain Manager take in the permits and route them to Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division s Certified Floodplain Managers to review for accuracy and completeness before City Planning gives final approval. PAGE 3-9

80

81 SECTION update Risk ASSESSMENT section Contents RISK ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS... 2 SECTION OVERVIEW... 4 Table 4-1a City of Puyallup - Hazard Identification Summary Geological... 9 Table 4-1b City of Puyallup - Hazard Identification Summary Meteorological ASSESSING VULNERABILITY REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES MAP 4-1A Puyalup Valley Floor Map 4-1 Seismic Hazard Areas Map 4-2 Landslide and Erosion Map 4-3 Volcanic Hazard Areas Map 4-4 Flood Hazard Area Map 4-5 Wind Event East Map 4-6 Wind Event South Table 4-2 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated Table 4-3 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Unincorporated Puyallup Table 4-4 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated Table 4-5 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-6 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated Table 4-7 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Unincorporated Puyallup Table 4-8a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological Table 4-8b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological ENDNOTES Risk Assessment Requirements Identifying Hazards--- Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Does the new or updated plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? Profiling Hazards---Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): PAGE 4-1

82 [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Does the risk assessment identify (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard being addressed in the new or updated plan? Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Assessing Vulnerability: Overview---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to each hazard? Does the new or updated plan address the impacts of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment] must also address the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss properties located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(a): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(b): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(a) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses for vulnerable structures? Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(c): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and development trends? PAGE 4-2

83 Section Overview The Risk Assessment portrays the threats of natural hazards, the vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction to the hazards, and the consequences of hazards impacting communities. Each hazard is addressed as a threat and is identified and profiled in the Hazard Identification. The vulnerabilities to and consequences of a given hazard are addressed in the Vulnerability Analysis. Vulnerability is analyzed in terms of exposure of both population and infrastructure to each hazard. Consequences are identified as anticipated, predicted, or documented impacts caused by a given hazard when considering the vulnerability analysis and the characteristics of the hazard as outlined in its identification. RISK Threat Vulnerability Consequence The City of Puyallup 2006 Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment was used for this plan. The City of Puyallup s Vulnerability and Consequence Analysis are based on the City of Puyallup Hazard Identification. The City of Puyallup Hazard Identification can be found in the 2006 HIVA. Each hazard is identified in subsections. The subsections are grouped by hazardtype (i.e., geological and meteorological hazards) and then alphabetically within each type. A summary table of the City of Puyallup Hazard Identification is included in this section as Table 4-1a and Table 4-1b. The Vulnerability Analysis is displayed in five tables: o Table 4-2 General Exposure o Table 4-3 Population Exposure o Table 4-4 General Infrastructure Exposure o Table 4-5a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological o Table 4-5b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological The Consequence Identification is organized by Threat. Each threat page summarizes the hazard, graphically illustrates exposures from the Vulnerability Analysis and lists corresponding Consequences. The City of Puyallup has its own Consequence Identification and it is included in this section: earthquake, landslide, tsunami, volcanic, drought, flood and severe weather. Specific information and analysis of the City of Puyallup s owned (public) infrastructure is addressed in the Infrastructure Section of this Plan. PAGE 4-3

84 Through the Mitigation, HIVA and CEMP planning processes, the City of Puyallup has identified four major natural hazards that significantly affect the region. These hazards were chosen based on multiple criteria including high frequency and potential impact. The most common hazards are Earthquakes, Flood, Winter/Severe Storms and Volcano Eruption. They have been identified in all three plans and the likelihood of (re)occurrence and potential damage to life and property is illustrated. Additionally, certain man-made hazards such as fire, hazmat and terrorism have been accounted for and mitigation strategies can be found in those plans. Geography & Climate- The geography and climate of the Puyallup area naturally offer rationale for the threats and vulnerabilities. Puyallup is made up of steep hills and low valleys. The city is located near water and generally has mild and steady rainfall annually. The make-up of the land and normal weather patterns make harsh weather an issue that needs to be accounted for and mitigated. Since the climate is typically mild, severe weather tends to hit the area harder and make a greater impact to certain critical services like transportation, communications and utilities. Earthquake- Puyallup averages at least one earthquake every ten years. More recently they have become more frequent and at a higher rate of intensity. Over the last 20 years, the region has experienced earthquakes every two years and in 2001 we had three in one year. The highest likelihood for devastating damage will occur in the Puget Sound area and include a large part of Pierce County and King County. More detailed information on the impacts of earthquakes in the Puyallup region can be found on the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management website, WA State Department of Natural Resources and through the US Geological Survey. The Pierce County DEM Mitigation Plan (2009) Figure 4.G2-8 Seismic Hazard and map 4-1 illustrates the potential impacts on Puyallup in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. Flood- Since the City of Puyallup (located within Pierce County) is prone to flooding on an annual basis, a lot of information has been gathered on the potential and real impacts of flooding in the area and multiple mitigation strategies have been designed based on past disaster events and areas that are continually affected. The most common flood zones are rivers and creeks swelling due to heavy rainfall in urban areas and ice melting from Mount Rainier and the surrounding Cascade Mountain Range. Pierce County has had 17 federally declared disasters since 1960 and 11 of them were flooding incidents. The largest flood on record is the Puyallup River in As population grows and urbanization expands, this increases the damages as a consequence of repetitive flooding. Also, it is important to note that changes in the temperature and climate have added to the frequency and magnitude of flooding incidents particularly over the last 20 years. Historically, the highest frequency flood areas in Puyallup are 12th Ave. SE and 25th Street SE, Meeker Ditch- 11th Street SW to 14th Street SW, Pioneer Creek on 14th Street SW and Clarks Creek. PAGE 4-4

85 Severe Storms-The Puyallup Hazard Identification Vulnerability Asessment (p.29-31) contains records and disaster declarations of severe storms affecting Puyallup and the surrounding region such as windstorms, snowstorms, ice storms and tornadoes. Harsh weather, creating severe storms, affects the Puyallup area at least once every year and the damages/costs to our citizens are high. The Pierce County DEM Mitigation Plan (2009) Figure 4.M-4-1 & 4.M4-2 and maps 45, 4-6 illustrate the potential impacts on Puyallup in a severe storm event. Volcano- The likelihood of a volcano erupting in and around Puyallup from Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Rainier is relatively low compared to the other hazards, but the amount of damage and devastation it would cause is high. Pierce County DEM maintains a Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan that details the monitoring, planning, operational response and historical data surrounding a volcanic eruption in the region. There is also a committee that meets quarterly at Pierce County Emergency Management on the plan and ideas to improve and update sections including evacuation from the valley. The Lahar warning system is tested the first Monday of every month and includes Puyallup, 911 Center and Pierce County. Additionally, Puyallup tests the system bi-annually with schools in May & October. Puyallup EM is an original member of the Lahar group that provided funding and delivered presentations along with Pierce County DEM. Pierce County DEM maintains a Volcano Map (Volcano Map 4.G5-1) in their Mitigation Plan that accounts for effects in the Puyallup region. Profiling Hazards The City of Puyallup contracted with a GIS professional in 2010 who designed shake maps for the City outlining areas demonstrating the potential damaging impacts of a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. A hazard identification summary showing the extent of each natural hazard can be found in Section 4 of this plan on page 4-5 table 4-1A and 4-1B.It is the intent of the city for the next update cycle of this plan to expand the scope of this information by contracting for Engineering Services to assess the level of risk for each hazard and determine potential extent, magnitude and severity. Not having that capability at this time hinders our ability to provide accurate calculations and forecast damage costs. Previous Occurrences-The Puyallup DEM maintains documentation of all disasters declared within the region in the Emergency Operations Center. Flood- Annual o Floods are the cause of most federal disaster declarations that include Pierce County. The last two major floods to impact Pierce County were the November PAGE 4-5

86 2006 flood and floods. Both of these caused millions of dollars worth of damage to both the private and public sectors. (Region 5 HZ Mitigation Plan ) Earthquake- Every 10 years o The threat of a large scale earthquake is becoming better known through the research done by both governmental and educational organizations. We no longer have to rely on recorded earthquakes of the past 150 years. Research has shown that we have three distinct earthquake threats in Region 5 which are in and around the City of Puyallup. Deep earthquakes like the 2001 Nisqually earthquake that was magnitude 6.8; earthquakes on the Seattle or Tacoma Faults that could have a magnitude up to 8.0; and subduction earthquakes located off the Washington Coast that could have a magnitude as high as 9.0. An earthquake of any of these types could cause millions if not billions of dollars of damage within the Region. (Region 5 HZ Mitigation Plan ) Severe Weather- Annual o Severe weather hazard includes the wide variety of weather problems Puyallup will encounter. Windstorms, hail, snow, ice storms, and tornadoes have all impacted the City in the past. The most recent example was the federal disaster declaration for the windstorm of December (Region 5 HZ Mitigation Plan ) Volcanic Eruption- Every 20 years o A volcanic eruption threat largely comes from Mt. Rainier. There is a small potential for ash from other volcanoes in the Cascades, especially Mt. St. Helens. However, Mt. Rainier is the only volcano with the potential for inundating the major river valleys in the County with mud up to 30 or more feet deep. (Region 5 HZ Mitigation Plan ) Probability Methodology- In 2007, Pierce County accounted for the City of Puyallup s mitigation strategies and actions with a Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan includes the methodology used to determine the probability of future events for each natural hazard. In addition, Puyallup s HAZUS plan contains historical data regarding natural hazards in western Washington used in establishing the higher risk areas. Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009 methodology- The recurrence probabilities were based on best available science, the historical record when available, and information from local hazard experts. For some hazards, like severe weather or floods, the historical record is pretty well defined. For others, like volcanic eruptions or spontaneous lahars, the record has to be read from the geologic evidence and therefore the recurrence rate can only be determined over time by scientific inquiry. After each hazard was profiled in the Risk Assessment, a consequence analysis of its effects on different portions of the County was added. That section asks seven questions that evaluated the overall impact on the Region. These are: How is the health and safety of persons in the affected area at the time of the incident affected? How is the health and safety of personnel responding to the incident affected? How is the jurisdictions continuity of operations affected and can it continue to deliver services to the impacted area? What is the effect on the jurisdiction s property, facilities and infrastructure? What are the effects on the environment? PAGE 4-6

87 How will the economic/financial environment be impacted? How will the public s confidence in a jurisdiction be impacted or changed? After assessing hazard maps produced by Pierce County s computer mapping software and interviews with County officials and local hazard experts, the list of potentially disastrous natural hazards to the County was narrowed to the following nine: Avalanche Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami and Seiche Volcano Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Evaluating the hazards that were listed and consolidating the storms section into one category was decided on by the planning group. Once the decision was made on which hazards to cover extensive research was done to further update the HIVA with the latest information available. The Planning Team believes that the various officials experiences within the area, as well as their capabilities to derive reasonable estimates of the geographic area at risk and the potential impacts of the hazard, is adequate for the purposes of this planning effort. PAGE 4-7

88 Table 4-1a City of Puyallup - Hazard Identification Summary Geological THREAT DECLARATION # DATE/PLACE PROBABILITY/RECURRENCE MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES EARTHQUAKE LANDSLIDE N/A--7/22/2001 Nisqually Delta N/A--6/10/2001 Satsop DR-1361-WA--2/2001 Nisqually N/A--7/2/1999 Satsop N/A--4/29/1965 Maury Island, South Puget Sound N/A--4/13/1949 South Puget Sound N/A--2/14/1946 Maury Island DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 DR-852-WA--1/1990 DR-545-WA--12/1977 Magnitude 4.3 Magnitude 5.0 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 5.8 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 6.5 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 7.0 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude years or less occurrence Historical Record About every 23 years for intraplate earthquakes Slides with minor impact (damage to 5 or less developed properties or $1,000,000 or less damage) 10 years or less. Slides with significant impact (damage to 6 or more developed properties or $1,000,000 or greater damage) 100 years or less. VOLCANIC DR-623-WA--5/1980 The recurrence rate for either a major lahar (Case I or Case II) or a major tephra eruption is 500 to 1000 years. Table 4-1b City of Puyallup - Hazard Identification Summary Meteorological HAZARD FEMA DECLARATION # DATE/PLACE PROBABILITY/RECURRENCE Types of Earthquakes Major Faults in the Puget Sound Basin Seattle and Tacoma Fault Segments Pierce County Seismic Hazard Major Pacific Northwest Earthquakes Notable Earthquakes Felt in Pierce County Salmon Beach, Tacoma Washington following Feb 2001 Earthquake Liquefaction Niigata Japan-1964 Lateral Spreading March 2001 Northeast Tacoma Landslide 01/2007 Pierce County Landslide and Soil Erosion Hazard Pierce County Shoreline Slope Stability Areas Notable Landslides in Pierce County Ski Park Road Landslide 01/31/03 SR-165 Bridge Along Carbon River Landslide 2/1996 Aldercrest Drive - Landslide Volcano Hazards Debris Flow at Tahoma Creek July 26, 1988 Douglas Fir Stump Electron Lahar Deposit in Orting Landslide from Little Tahoma Peak Covering Emmons Glacier Tephra Types and Sizes Lahars, Lava Flows and Pyroclastic Hazards of Mt. Rainier Estimated Lahar Travel Times for Lahars 107 to 108 Cubic Meters in Volume Ash fall Probability from Mt. Rainier Annual Probability of 10 Centimeters or more of Tephra Accumulation in the Pacific NW Cascade Eruptions Mt. Rainier Identified Tephra, last 10,000 years Pierce County River Valley Debris Flow History MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES PAGE 4-8

89 DROUGHT DR-981-WA--1/1993 DR-137-WA--10/1962 FLOOD DR-WA /2009 NA-11/2008 DR-1734-WA--12/2007 DR-1671-WA--11/2006 DR-1499-WA--10/2003 DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 DR-1100-WA--1-2/1996 DR-1079-WA /1995 DR-896-WA--12/1990 DR-883-WA--11/1990 SEVERE WEATHER DR WA 12/2008 DR-1682-WA--12/2006 DR-1671-WA--11/2006 DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 DR-1152-WA--11/19/1996 DR-852-WA--1/1990 DR-784-WA--11/1986 DR-545-WA--12/1977 DR-492-WA--12/1975 DR-328-WA--2/1972 DR-185-WA--12/1964 DR-981-WA--1/1993 DR-137-WA--10/ years or less occurrence Sequence of Drought Impacts Palmer Drought Severity Index Pierce County Watersheds %Area of Basin in Drought Conditions Since 1895 %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: Notable Droughts Affecting Pierce County Columbia River Basin USDA Climate Zones Washington State 5 years or less occurrence Best Available Science--The frequency of the repetitive loss claims indicates there is approximately a 33 percent chance of flooding occurring each year. The recurrence rate for all types of severe storms is 5 years or less. Pierce County Watersheds Pierce County Flood Hazard Pierce County Repetitive Loss Areas Clear Creek Basin Fujita Tornado Damage Scale Windstorm Tracks Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard South Wind Event Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard East Wind Event Notable Severe Weather in Pierce County Snowstorm 01/2004 Downtown Tacoma Satellite Image Hanukkah Eve Windstorm Before/After Tornado Damage Greensburg KS 05/04/07 Public Works Responds 2005 Snowstorm Downed Power Pole 02/2006 Windstorm County Road December 2006 Windstorm Tacoma Narrows Bridge November 7, 1940 Windstorm All the hazards could affect the community toward complete destruction. We are required to deal within the response phase and throughout recovery. PAGE 4-9

90 Assessing Vulnerability Puyallup has a long history of emergencies and disasters both manmade and natural. They range from hazardous chemical spills to earthquakes, from civil disorder to windstorms. Some of the potential disasters that could affect the City, like a major lahar from Mount Rainier, have not happened for hundreds of years, yet the result could be catastrophic loss of life, disruption of the City's infrastructure and long term economic devastation. Since 1962 Pierce County, of which Puyallup is a part, has been included in 17 Presidential disaster declarations. While storms and floods make up the bulk of these, there are others, including earthquakes, the 1980 volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and the 1994 fishing disaster. In addition to these there are many smaller emergencies, which can and have caused major disruption in the past. In assessing vulnerability we know that we have to identify consequences (to people and property) and estimate or forecast potential losses. However, we don t have the ability to perform this task. What we do know is that all city facilities are presently insured by the City of Puyallup through The Washington Cities Insurance Authority. They are insured for replacement value as well as impacts which might occur due to being damaged and either partially or totally destroyed. We will be developing a scope of work to hire an engineering firm to assess the level of risk for each hazard and to come up with associated costs. Until then, we have identified those critical facilities and systems within the City and they are plotted on the Critical Facilities map. Based on limited information of historical disaster impacts, an estimate of potential future losses comes from the amounts listed in the Infrastructure Table 6-6. Repetitive Flood Loss Properties According to FEMA Region X data, four (4) properties have been identified in the Puyallup area as repetitive loss properties. Properties- PROPERTY Total Payments Year of Losses 1 $114, , $28, , 1996, 1998, $11, (2 times) 4 $16, , 2005, 2006, 2007 Costs- Building- $79, Contents- $90, Total Costs- $170, FEMA.GOV If you have received two or more claim payments of more than $1,000 from the National Flood Insurance Program within any rolling 10-year period for your home or business, your property is considered a Repetitive Loss (RL) structure. PAGE 4-10

91 PAGE 4-11

92 MAP 4-1A Puyalup Valley Floor PAGE 4-12

93 Map 4-1 Seismic Hazard Areas PAGE 4-13

94 PAGE 4-14

95 Map 4-2 Landslide and Erosion PAGE 4-15

96 Map 4-3 Volcanic Hazard Areas PAGE 4-16

97 PAGE 4-17

98 Map 4-4 Flood Hazard Area PAGE 4-18

99 Map 4-5 Wind Event East PAGE 4-19

100 PAGE 4-20

101 Map 4-6 Wind Event South PAGE 4-21

102 Table 4-2 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated THREAT AREA (SQ MI) PARCELS Total % Base Total % Base BASE 1, % 304, % Earthquake % 34,259 11% Landslide 1,051 97% 233,139 77% Volcanic % 29,247 10% Drought 3 1, % 304, % Flood % 28,923 9% Severe Weather 1, % 304, % PAGE 4

103 Table Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Unincorporated Puyallup THREAT AREA (SQ MI) PARCELS Total % Base Total % Base BASE % 150, % Earthquake % 11,105 7% Landslide % 146,761 98% Volcanic % 8,569.6% Drought % 150, % Flood % 19,814 13% Severe Weather % 150, % -20 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated THREAT Total POPULATION % Base Density (pop/sq mi) SPECIAL POPULATIONS (OF TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION) 65+ yrs 18- yrs # % # % BASE 700, % ,613 10% 190,545 27% Earthquake 64,285 9% 216 7,298 11% 16,726 26% Landslide 482,271 69% ,645 10% 132,971 28% Volcanic 52,038 7% 251 6,323 12% 13,185 25% Drought 700, % ,613 10% 190,545 27% Flood 33,833 5% 89 3,500 10% 9,133 27% Severe Weather 700, % ,613 10% 190,545 27% PAGE 4

104 Table 4-4 County THREAT -21 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce Total POPULATION % Base Density (pop/sq mi) SPECIAL POPULATIONS (OF TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION) 65+ yrs 18- yrs # % # % BASE 239, % ,867 9% 69,053 29% Earthquake 44,009 18% 235 4,051 9% 12,362 28% Landslide 239, % ,867 9% 69,053 29% Volcanic 15,206 6% 127 1,795 12% 3,965 26% Drought 239, % ,867 9% 69,053 29% Flood 123,677 52% ,787 10% 34,547 28% Severe Weather 239, % ,867 9% 69,053 29% -22 PAGE 4

105 Table 4-5 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-City of Puyallup, Incorporated LAND VALUE IMPROVED VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE THREAT Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) BASE 50,210,649, % 164,869 52,289,711, % 171, ,500,360, % 336,564 Earthquake 9,052,786,850 18% 264,246 7,810,690,250 18% 227,989 16,863,477,100 16% 492,235 Landslide 39,336,177,516 78% 168,724 37,865,895,547 72% 162,418 77,202,073,063 75% 331,142 Volcanic 7,568,294,500 15% 258,772 7,091,033,570 14% 242,453 14,659,328,070 14% 501,225 Drought 50,210,649, % 164,869 52,289,711, % 171, ,500,360, % 336,564 Flood 9,382,879,200 19% 324,409 6,218,273,970 12% 214,994 15,601,153,170 15% 539,403 Severe Weather 50,210,649, % 164,869 52,289,711, % 171, ,500,360, % 336,564

106 Table 4-6 PAGE 4-23 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Unincorporated Puyallup LAND VALUE IMPROVED VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE THREAT Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) BASE 22,984,714, % 152,720 20,393,829, % 135,505 43,378,543, % 288,226 Earthquake 1,991,778,800 9% 179,359 1,320,048,200 6% 118,870 3,311,827,000 8% 298,228 Landslide 22,035,341,821 96% 150,144 19,903,164,722 98% 135,616 41,938,506,543 97% 285,761 Volcanic 1,236,473,300 5% 144, ,107,500 4% 99,908 2,092,580,800 5% 244,204 Drought 22,984,714, % 152,720 20,393,829, % 135,505 43,378,543, % 288,226 Flood 5,031,616,700 22% 253,943 2,679,755,600 13% 135,246 7,711,372,300 18% 389,188 Severe Weather 22,984,714, % 152,720 20,393,829, % 135,505 43,378,543, % 288,226 PAGE 4-24

107 Table 4-8a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological 7 THREAT CONSEQUENCE OR NO Earthquake Landslide Volcanic Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction -25 Table 4-8b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes THREAT CONSEQUENCE OR NO Drought Flood Severe Weather Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes PAGE 4

108 Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Yes Yes Yes -26 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) PAGE 4

109 Endnotes It should be noted here that although all residents of City of Puyallup are vulnerable to earthquake shaking, not all are subject to the affects of liquefaction and liquefiable soils. 2 The threat of volcanic ashfall affects the entire Region; however some jurisdictions are specifically threatened by lahar flows directly from Mt. Rainier which is an active volcano. 3 The entire jurisdiction is vulnerable to drought. There are three things that must be understood about the affect of drought on the jurisdiction: 1) Drought is a Region wide event. When it does affect Pierce County, it will affect every jurisdiction, 2) Drought will gradually develop over time. It is a gradually escalating emergency that may take from months to years to affect the jurisdiction. Initially lack of water may not even be noticed by the citizens. However, as the drought continues, its effects will be noticed by a continually expanding portion of the community until it is felt by all, and 3) Jurisdictions will be affected differently at different times as a drought develops. This will vary depending on the needs of the each local jurisdiction. Some examples are: jurisdictions that have industry that requires a continuous supply of a large quantity of water; others have agriculture that requires water, but only require it at certain times of the year; and, some jurisdictions have a backup source of water while others do not. 4 It should be noted here that although all residents of City of Puyallup are vulnerable to earthquake shaking, not all are subject to the affects of liquefaction and liquefiable soils. 5 The threat of volcanic ashfall affects the entire Region; however some jurisdictions are specifically threatened by lahar flows directly from Mt. Rainier which is an active volcano. 6 The entire jurisdiction is vulnerable to drought. There are three things that must be understood about the affect of drought on the jurisdiction: 1) Drought is a Region wide event. When it does affect Pierce County, it will affect every jurisdiction, 2) Drought will gradually develop over time. It is a gradually escalating emergency that may take from months to years to affect the jurisdiction. Initially lack of water may not even be noticed by the citizens. However, as the drought continues, its effects will be noticed by a continually expanding portion of the community until it is felt by all, and 3) Jurisdictions will be affected differently at different times as a drought develops. This will vary depending on the needs of the each local jurisdiction. Some examples are: jurisdictions that have industry that requires a continuous supply of a large quantity of water; others have agriculture that requires water, but only require it at certain times of the year; and, some jurisdictions have a backup source of water while others do not. 7 The consideration for each of these hazards, as to whether an individual hazard s consequence exists or not, is based on a possible worst case scenario (both Table 4 6a and 4 6b). It must also be understood that a Yes means there is a good possibility that the consequence it refers to could happen as a result of the hazard, not that it will. Conversely No means that it is highly unlikely that it will have a major impact, not that there will be no impact at all. PAGE 4

110 -28 PAGE 4

111 SECTION 5 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF PUYALLUP 2010 UPDATE MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION Contents REQUIREMENT... 4 IMPLEMENTATION... 4 Table 5-1 Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matri... 6 HAZARD MITIGATION FORUM MITIGATION MEASURES... 9 PRIORITY: ALL-HMF Pierce County s Natural Hazard Mitigation Forum... 9 PRIORITY: ALL-HMF Underground Utilities... 9 PRIORITY: ALL-HMF Retrofit of Lower Puyallup Levee System City of Puyallup Benefit Cost Analysis PRIORITY: E-HMF Fire District Annexations PRIORITY: V-HMF Lahar Flow Control HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MITIGATION MEASURES PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Hazard Mitigation Committee PRIORITY: ALL-HMC All-Hazard Mitigation Plan PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Continuity of Government Plan PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Recovery Plan PRIORITY: L-HMC Landslide Warning System PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Preventative Maintenance Plan: PDEM Communications Division PRIORITY: ALL-HMC The City DEM: Preventative Maintenance: Acoustic Flow Monitors PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Critical Infrastructure: Auxiliary Power PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Critical Infrastructure: Access Limitation Evaluation PRIORITY: V-HMC Volcanic Hazard Response and Recovery Standard Operating Procedures PRIORITY: F-HMC

112 Mitigation Strategy FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps PRIORITY: ALL-HMC Levee system: Facility Assessment Plan Development PRIORITY: F-HMC Setback Levees PRIORITY: F-HMC Preventative Maintenance: Flood Control Infrastructure PRIORITY: F-HMC Repetitive Flood Loss Properties PRIORITY: F-HMC New Construction: Flood Control Infrastructure PRIORITY: F-HMC Response: Surface Water Management Programs Emergency Resource Maintenance PRIORITY: F-HMC Puyallup River Level Gauge Monitors PUBLIC EDUCATION MITIGATION MEASURES PRIORITY: ALL-PE Community Emergency Response Teams PRIORITY: ALL-PE Public Education Campaigns: All Hazards PRIORITY: ALL -PC Public Education Campaigns: Post-Disaster, All Hazards PRIORITY: ALL-PE NOAA All Hazards Radio Program PRIORITY: ALL-PE Public Education: Hazard Insurance Information PRIORITY: SW-PE Public Education: Severe Weather PRIORITY: SW-PE Public Education: Lahar PRIORITY: V-PE Public Education: Volcanic Ashfall PRIORITY: V-PE Public Education: Evacuation Routes PRIORITY: F-PE Public Education: Flood EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTION TEAM MITIGATION MEASURES PRIORITY: V-EMAT Evacuation Planning: New Roads and Development PRIORITY: SW-PE Tree Maintenance Program PRIORITY: ALL-EMAT Pre-Disaster Business Mitigation Loan Program PRIORITY: ALL-EMAT Information Technology-Essential Records Protection PRIORITY: ALL-EMAT Pierce City Information Technology Department Fiber Ring PRIORITY: ALL-EMAT PAGE 5-2

113 Mitigation Strategy Property Acquisition Program: Selection Process PRIORITY: T-EMAT Tsunami Critical Area Regulation ENDNOTES Page left Blank Intentionally PAGE 5-3

114 Mitigation Strategy Requirement Mitigation Strategy---Requirement 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a strategy that provides the jurisdiction s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals---Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions---Requirement 201.6(c)(3) (ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance-- Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure? Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure? Does the new or updated plan describe the jurisdiction(s) participation in the NFIP? Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze and prioritize actions related to continued compliance with the NFIP? Implementation of Mitigation Actions---Requirement: 201.6(c)(3) (iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?) Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered, including the responsible department, existing and potential resources and the timeframe to complete each action? Does the new or updated prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of cost-benefit review to maximize benefits? Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? Implementation Prioritization of mitigation actions specific to Puyallup was originally established by Puyallup PAGE 5-4

115 Mitigation Strategy Emergency Management in conjunction with PCDEM and the local EMAT team. These groups came together on multiple occasions to discuss local hazards and potential risks to life and property. Through the hazard identification analysis process disaster mitigation priorities were established. Our highest priorities regard potential loss of lives, power, communications and transportation which are the life blood of our City s ability to function. And, specific disaster scenarios are based on the following criteria: Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation Cost of Measure = Cost of meeting room, refreshments and documentation Funding source and situation = funding could be obtained through local budget. Lead Department(s) = Puyallup EM Timeline = Short-term Benefit = City-Wide Life of Measure = Perpetual Community Reaction Table 5-1 Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matrix on p. 5-5 illustrates what Mitigation Measures will be implemented as well as the lead jurisdiction/department and a timeline for implementation. PAGE 5-5

116 1 Table 5 1 Puyallup Mitigation Strategy Matrix Plan Goals Implementation Mechanism 2 Mitigation Measure (Hazard(s)) Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Timeline (years) HMF PC DEM; EMAT, Local 1. Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Forum-All Jurisdictions Ongoing 2. Underground Utilities-All PC DEM; Local Utility Providers 5 3. Retrofit of Lower Puyallup Levee System-All Local Jurisdictions 5 4. Fire District Annexations-E,SW,WUI Local fire districts; WA DNR 5 Fire Prevention Bureau (PC DEM); 5. Develop Fire wise Communities-WUI Local fire districts; WA DNR 5 6. Lahar Flow Control-V PC DEM 5 7. Dam Draw Down Agreements-F,V PC DEM Division; Facility Owners 5 1. Hazard Mitigation Committee-All EMAT Ongoing N/A 2. All-Hazard Mitigation Plan-All PDEM: EMAT 5 N/A HMC 3. Continuity of Government Plan-All PDEM: EMAT 5 4. Recovery Plan-All PDEM 5 5. Preventative Maintenance Plan: PDEM Communications Division PDEM 5 6. Preventative Maintenance: Acoustic Flow Monitors PDEM; USGS 5 7. Critical Infrastructure: Auxiliary Power-All Parks & Rec 5 8. Critical Infrastructure: Access Limitation EvaluationAll Development Services Volcanic Hazard Response and Recovery SOP for Multiple Infrastructure-V PPEM; Development Services FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps-F Development Service, FEMA On-going

117 12. Levee System: Facility Assessment Plan Development-All Development Services Setback Levees-F Development Services Preventive Maintenance: Flood Control Infrastructure-F Development Services Ongoing 15. Repetitive Flood Loss Program-F Development Services Ongoing 16. New Construction: Flood Control Infrastructure-F Development Services Response: Surface Water Management Emergency Resource Maintenance-F Public Works Ongoing PAGE 5-6 Implementation Mechanism 2 Plan Goals Mitigation Measure (Hazard(s)) Lead Jurisdiction(s) / Department(s) Timeline (years) 18. Puyallup River Level Gauge Monitors PDEM 5 Public Education CERT: All PDEM Ongoing 1. Public Education Campaigns: All Hazards-All PDEM Ongoing 2. Public Education Campaigns: Post-Disaster, All Hazards-All PDEM Ongoing 3. NOAA All Hazards Radio Program-All PDEM 5 4. Public Education: Hazard Insurance Information-All PDEM, Insurance Industry Public Education: Severe Weather-SW PDEM Ongoing 6. Public Education: Lahar-V PDEM Ongoing 7. Public Education: Volcanic Ashfall-V PDEM 5 8. Public Education: Evacuation Routes-V PDEM 1-2

118 EMAT 9. Public Education: Flood-F 10. PDEM On-going SBA; Economic Development, Tree Maintenance Program-SW PDEM 5 City Information Technology; Pre-Disaster Business Mitigation Loan Program-All PDEM; COOP Coordinator Group 5 Essential Records Protection-All IT; All City Ongoing Parks and Recreation; Development Information Technology Fiber Ring-All Services, PDEM Ongoing Property Acquisition Program: Selection Process-All PDEM, Development Services 5 PAGE 5-7

119 Hazard Mitigation Forum Mitigation Measures Priority: ALL HMF 13 Pierce County s Natural Hazard Mitigation Forum The County will continue to head the Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF) Pierce County held a forum and invited all jurisdictions that should have mitigation plans to attend for updates to their exciting plans and coordinate all jurisdictional planning efforts. Pierce County and FEMA representatives review the planning process and updated requirements for all jurisdictions and as well as regional projects and actives. This will ensure efficient use of resources and a more cooperative approach to making a disaster resilient county. The HMF meets annually. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan. The list of the invited jurisdictions ares listed in Section Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Cost of meeting room, refreshments and documentation 3. Funding source and situation = funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = Pierce County Department of Emergency Management (PC DEM) 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = County-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The priorities of actions were established by the cities, in the forum, listed in Section1, to have the Emergency Management Action Team (EMAT) facilitate and achieve the greatest degree of cooperative effort by the collective jurisdictions and agencies involved. Priority: ALL HMF 2 Underground Utilities The County will continue to encourage the placement of all utilities (i.e., power lines) underground. This will limit the potential damage to infrastructure as well as the damage that infrastructure could cause to life and property. Events like the windstorm of February 2006 and December 2006 where power lines were down all over the County show the viability of this measure. Where this is not economically feasible for the utility provider, homeowners PAGE 5-9

120 could have the option to have their utilities placed underground through an individualized rate structure Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Varies 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = PC DEM; Local utility providers 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = County-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Varies 8. Community Reaction = The proposal would be somewhat controversial. Priority: ALL HMF 3 Retrofit of Lower Puyallup Levee System The County will coordinate with other jurisdictions on the flood retrofit of the Lower Puyallup Levee System through the Puyallup River Executive Task Force. The levee system on the lower Puyallup River has been deemed inadequate by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) resulting in their decertification and subsequent changes to FEMA s flood plain maps. This results in new flood plain designations and restrictions along the Puyallup River. The County believes there is regional consensus on the need to improve the flood protection system to bring it back to its previous level of protectiveness. The County has historically been responsible for maintaining the levee system along the Puyallup River. Recent event flood events in November 2006, November 2008, and January 2009, provide a further impetus to move this long-term project on for the greater sustainability of the County. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Estimated $150 Million 3. Funding source and situation = funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = Puyallup River Executive Task Force; Federal Jurisdictions; State Jurisdictions; Tribal Jurisdictions; Local Jurisdictions 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = County-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. City of Puyallup Benefit Cost Analysis The Mitigation Plan only establishes the frame work for mitigation efforts. Mitigation efforts are put into practice through a number of other planning and control mechanisms like the City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, in conjunction with the Growth Management PAGE 5-10

121 Act, The Critical Lands Ordinances, Engineering Guidelines and other adopted codes. An example of this process is as follows: The City of Puyallup Hazard Venerability Analysis identifies a Lahar as a threat and possibility in the future. The city has adopted code requirements establishing occupancy limits where additional warning equipment will need to be installed in new construction in Lahar Zones. The Mitigation Plan calls for the mitigation to lessen the for-casted risk but ordinances, codes and other adopted standards makes the mitigation happen. Cost-benefit review does not apply at this time to our projects. Individual cost analysis will be conducted prior to its submission after each project application is submitted or reevaluated during a mitigation request. As we are approved for projects, each will be scheduled for a cost-benefit view and analysis for each and then only project by project. The priority of the benefit out weights the costs over all of the proposed mitigation actions proposed. The EMAT (Emergency Management Action Team) prioritized all posed mitigation measures to achieve the greatest cooperative efforts and savings. Priority: E HMF 4 Fire District Annexations The City will continue to encourage rural residents to annex to local fire districts. This will transfer fire response capabilities to local control and increase funds available for firefighting services at the local level. In some areas residents have not annexed to their local fire districts and instead are served by the Department of Natural Resources. Washington State law provides that annexations may occur by petition when the owners of 60% of the assessed valuation of the annexation area submit a petition that is subsequently approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Local fire districts; WA Department of Natural Resources; Fire Prevention Bureau (PDEM) 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal would be somewhat controversial. PAGE 5-11

122 Priority: V HMF 6 Lahar Flow Control The City will continue to coordinate a Lahar Flow Control Research Program that will identify a comprehensive list of Sabô Work s projects which could be implemented over time to reduce the volume of Puyallup valley Lahar. These erosion control structures can inhibit the flow as it descends the valley limiting the damage further down the valley. They may include crib dams, channel works, step dams, slit dams, catchment basins, training dikes, etc. In most instances rather than a single structure they are used in multiples or combinations of many different structures. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Protect or Restore Natural Resources 2. Cost of Measure = Engineering studies, contractors, time and materials, labor 3. Funding Source and Situation = HMGP, PDM grants or other grants. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Pierce County DEM 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = County-Wide (Especially Carbon, Nisqually, Puyallup, and White River Valleys) 7. Life of Measure = Life of Structure 8. Community Reaction = This proposal would be somewhat controversial. Hazard Mitigation Committee Mitigation Measures Priority: ALL HMC 1 Hazard Mitigation Committee The City will continue the coordination of the City Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC). The HMC functions as a means of coordinating, evaluating, and updating mitigation planning efforts among City departments with mitigation capabilities. This ensures efficient use of resources and a more cooperative approach to making a disaster resilient City. The HMC will meet biennially to coincide with the normal City budgetary processes. This is addressed in the Plan Maintenance Section of this Plan. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = N/A. Goals addressed are contingent upon the mitigation measures resulting from this priority 2. Cost of Measure = Cost of meeting room, refreshments and documentation 3. Funding source and situation = funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM (PDEM) 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual PAGE 5-12

123 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 2 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan The City will continue to develop an All-Hazards Mitigation Plan as an expansion of this Plan. Based on recent guidance and best practices from the Emergency Management Accreditation Program and the Department of Homeland Security the City will build a stand alone plan. Combining human-caused hazards and terrorism threat assessments with this Plan will result in a more complete analysis of the City s vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies. In doing so, duplications of mitigation measures can be reduced and a more comprehensive prioritization of projects be achieved. Consolidating this information into one document will allow decision makers and those involved in the four phases of emergency management to better coordinate resources and eliminate duplication in efforts to reduce vulnerabilities and respond to and recover from disasters. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = N/A. Goals addressed are contingent upon the mitigation measures resulting from this priority 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials for plan development 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM. 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 3 Continuity of Government Plan The City will to continue it is current effort of Continuity of Operations Planning with all City Departments and Agencies by assembling their efforts into a Continuity of Government (COG) Plan. COG is the capability to ensure survivability of constitutional and democratic government and the continuity of essential government functions. This is vital to all phases of emergency management including hazard mitigation. By establishing baselines of what services have to be provided, with what personnel, at what locations, and with proper resources, the City can refine what is essential and provide more guidance in hazard mitigation measures. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Budget, cost of software and services 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Long-term PAGE 5-13

124 6. Benefit = City-Wide Services 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 4 Recovery Plan The City will develop a comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plan. This will be a pre-event plan for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, composed of policies, plans, actions and responsibilities. It will include an element of business resumption and long-term economic sustainability. There will be an emphasis on the transition of recovery to mitigation and the synergy of these two phases of emergency management. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Budget-Development costs 3. Funding source and situation = Departmental budgets 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Long-Term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: L HMC 5 Landslide Warning System The City will continue to pursue the development of a Landslide Warning System similar to that which Seattle employs. This system will alert residents when slide conditions are developing. With the current system of flood warnings, storm warnings, smog warnings, and high fire danger warnings it would be relatively easy to incorporate an additional one of landslide hazards through weather radio and television broadcasts. This would require an education program with targeted educational mailings for those at risk. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness. 2. Cost of Measure = Research costs, staff time and materials 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM with US Geological Service 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide (Especially coastal regions) 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal would benefit those affected, with no adverse reaction from others. PAGE 5-14

125 Priority: ALL HMC 6 Preventative Maintenance Plan: PDEM Communications Division The City will develop a plan to ensure the proper functioning of disaster response equipment used, owned, loaned, or stored by Emergency Management. This will ensure that the necessary resources used in response activities are properly functioning in the event that they are needed. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Budget Items 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM, Communication Division 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = Citizens City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 7 The City DEM: Preventative Maintenance: Acoustic Flow Monitors The City will continue advocating maintenance of all elements of the Lahar Warning System, including acoustic flow monitors (AFMs). Lahars will be detected by networks of five acoustic flow monitor (AFM) stations that have been placed in the upper reaches of both the Puyallup and Carbon River valleys. Each AFM station consists of a microprocessor-based data logger that measures the amplitude, frequency, and duration of ground vibrations detected by an exploration-class geophone. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = Bonds and/or grants The only potential funding source is a federal or state mitigation grant. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM; USGS 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. PAGE 5-15

126 Priority: ALL HMC 8 Critical Infrastructure: Auxiliary Power The City will continue to install generators for all identified infrastructure without adequate generators. Installation priority will be determined by the infrastructure rating. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Parks & Facilities 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Facility Specific, City-Wide Services 7. Life of Measure = Life of unit 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 9 Critical Infrastructure: Access Limitation Evaluation The City will continue to evaluate critical facilities to determine what infrastructure requires access limitations for security purposes. The City will take the necessary steps to provide access limitation security to those facilities. This will occur in accordance with the FEMA 426 planning recommendations. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = N/A 2. Cost of Measure = Cost of study and equipment 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = Facility Specific, City-Wide Services 7. Life of Measure = Life of equipment or policy 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. PAGE 5-16

127 Priority: V HMC 10 Volcanic Hazard Response and Recovery Standard Operating Procedures If a volcanic eruption blanketed the area with ash, multiple infrastructures in the City would immediately institute cleanup procedures to prevent infrastructure damage to the roof and HVAC system. This measure would develop those measures for cleanup and identify needed resources. The infrastructure is identified in Section 6 of this Plan. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Varies 3. Funding Source and Situation = Annual Operating Budget. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM, Development Services 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = Infrastructure Specific; City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Life of Infrastructure 8. Community Reaction = The proposal would benefit those affected, with no adverse reaction from others. Priority: F HMC 11 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps The City will continue its work in updating the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This leads to more accurate floodplain regulations and an opportunity to increase public awareness. The LIDAR mapping effort may assist in this effort. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Promote A Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Cost for information and maps, staff time 3. Funding Source and Situation = FEMA Map Modernization Program 4. Lead Department(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Life of Flood Insurance Program 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL HMC 12 Levee system: Facility Assessment Plan Development The entire river levee system needs to be systematically assessed following an earthquake, lahars, or the effected portions after a landslide. Surface Water Management will develop an assessment plan to efficiently use available staff. Assessment should be done as soon as safety allows, preferably within 24 hours. Measures shall include: training personnel in PAGE 5-17

128 assessment protocol, collection of facility status information, notification to EOC of any structure deficiencies & prioritization of needed repairs. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Minor 3. Funding Source and Situation = REET Fund 4. Lead Departments(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Short-term (One year) 6. Benefit = Entire area served by the levee system 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 13 Setback Levees Continue to place setback levees to increase flood storage within the active channel area and to enhance in-channel sediment transport. A great success from the last 5 years includes the Soldier's Home Setback Levee project. The setback has restored about 67acres of Puyallup River floodplain area to historic pre-levee conditions for fish and wildlife. Furthermore, this project has helped protect life and property in the Orting Area in several large recent floods. Further work should be done to align sites in the Levee SetBack Feasibility Study to sites that are being considered for flood hazard reduction and fish habitat sustainability. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Protect the Environment 2. Cost of Measure = Engineering studies, permits, equipment, materials, etc. 3. Funding Source and Situation = REET Fund, and Private Funding where applicable. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Life of levee 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 14 Preventative Maintenance: Flood Control Infrastructure The City will continue to maintain existing City-owned flood control infrastructure (i.e. ponds, levees and revetments) to reduce the chance of failure during flood events and to PAGE 5-18

129 optimize their storage capacity. This will ensure that they are able to function optimally during flood events. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Protect the Environment 2. Cost of Measure = TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = City s Surface Water Management Utility Fee, REET funds. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Planning and Land Development 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 15 Repetitive Flood Loss Properties The City will offer relocation incentives to any potential flood hazard area residents and businesses to reduce repeated property damage, contamination hazards, and personal safety risks associated with their current activities. Currently, there are no Repetitive Flood Loss Properties in or around the City of Puyallup. The City will continue to develop, advertise, and generate a contact list for a repetitive flood loss property acquisition program including a comprehensive property management plan outlining use options of acquired properties to prevent development or redevelopment. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Protect the Environment 2. Cost of Measure = TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = REET Fund, and Private Funding where applicable. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = TBD 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 16 New Construction: Flood Control Infrastructure The City will continue to design and construct new facilities to enhance flood storage during storm events such as ponds and setback levees. PAGE 5-19

130 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment 2. Cost of Measure = Engineering studies, equipment, materials, labor and more 3. Funding Source and Situation = City Surface Water Management Utility Fee, REET funds. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Planning and Land Development 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Life of structure 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 17 Response: Surface Water Management Programs Emergency Resource Maintenance The City will continue to maintain the resources needed to respond to emergency flood situations. This includes the following: Continue implementation of the Surface Water Management Programs emergency response plan so that the staff, equipment, communication tools, technology, materials, and contractors needed to respond to emergency events effectively are prepared. Continue to update emergency evacuation/hot spot areas. Continue to coordinate with other local, state, and federal agencies to review and update flood response efforts. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials as well as special resources 3. Funding Source and Situation = REET Fund, and Private Funding where applicable. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM; Development Services 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Extent of the life of the program 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F HMC 18 Puyallup River Level Gauge Monitors The City will continue working to provide the best Early Warning and Detection Capabilities utilizing best available science and technology. This includes the installation of additional United States Geological Survey radar-type river level gauge monitors on City of Puyallup owned bridges along the Puyallup River. This will lead to a more accurate flood forecast, early dissemination of warning and increased public awareness of the pending hazard. PAGE 5-20

131 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Engineering studies, equipment, materials, labor and more 3. Funding Source and Situation = Hazard Mitigation Grants 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = 5 Years 6. Benefit = Region-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Extent of the life of the equipment 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Public Education Mitigation Measures Priority: ALL PE 1 Community Emergency Response Teams The City will continue to work with neighborhoods to create Community Emergency Response Teams. The City will work to secure funding for the continued operation of the CERT program. CERT is a neighborhood-oriented approach to emergency preparedness and homeland security. It is based on the belief that a cooperative effort between a City and its citizens is the only sure way to protect a neighborhood and to prepare for a major disaster. The program helps individuals and their neighborhoods prepare to mutually assist each other so that lives can be saved, property can be spared, and emergency services can be freed to respond to the most devastated areas. This is accomplished by organizing block groups into a variety of disaster response teams, each of which has a simple one-page list that clearly outlines necessary tasks. No special skills or equipment are required to participate and only a minimal time commitment is needed. Such programs are critical to reminding the public of the natural hazards in the City, and of the necessity of having on hand the supplies and materials to survive independently for a minimum of one week. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Ensure Continuity of Operations; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Costs for supplies, materials and staff time 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through a federal or state mitigation grant. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Varies 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. PAGE 5-21

132 Priority: ALL PE 2 Public Education Campaigns: All Hazards The City will continue to deliver public education campaigns many times throughout the year to audiences ranging from preschoolers to senior citizens, on topics from appropriate use of 911 to organizing communities for disaster response such as the Community Emergency Response Teams and the annual Puyallup All-Hazards Emergency Preparedness Fair. In general these programs focus on preparing citizens to prepare for and respond to disasters. Such programs are critical to reminding the public of the natural hazards in Puyallup, and of the necessity of having on hand the supplies and materials to survive independently for a minimum of one week. These programs will be continued and expanded upon. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Varies 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. Funding could be obtained through a federal or state mitigation grant. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Varies 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL PC 3 Public Education Campaigns: Post-Disaster, All Hazards The City will expand on its current post-disaster public education campaigns. These campaigns will speak specifically to the previously occurring disaster, and will focus on atrisk and affected areas. This campaign will work in conjunction with the FEMA postdisaster public education efforts to ensure that local needs and issues are addressed. This will be an element of the recovery plan. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Varies 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Varies 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. PAGE 5-22

133 Priority: ALL PE 4 NOAA All Hazards Radio Program The City will expand on its current program in order that all residents of the valley, and eventually all residents in the City, will have access to ownership of All Hazards Radios. The City will also install NOAA All Hazards Radios in all City government facilities and train City employees in the radio s use. NOAA Weather Radio, in conjunction with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Emergency Alert System, is an "all hazards" radio network, making it the single source for the most comprehensive weather and emergency information available to the public. NOAA All Hazards Radio also broadcasts warning and post-event information for all types of hazards both natural (such as earthquake and volcano activity) and environmental (such as chemical releases or oil spills). 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness; Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Government Facilities: $50,000. City-Wide: TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through departmental budgets or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Life of unit 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL PE 5 Public Education: Hazard Insurance Information The City through Pierce County will partner with the WA Office of Insurance Commissioner to help increase public awareness of natural hazard insurance options and the benefits of carrying various hazard insurance. This will entail dissemination of a FAQ list regarding hazard insurance topics. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation; Promote A Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = Minor Staff time for meetings and cost of literature 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM and the Insurance Industry 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Pilot (perpetual) 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. PAGE 5-23

134 Priority: SW PE 6 Public Education: Severe Weather The City will continue education programs relating to winter preparedness as part of their preparedness education program. These programs will be expanded to include information on such topics as protecting a home from damage from falling branches, generator use, and in some cases will target those areas identified as having the greatest potential wind loading. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Continuous 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: SW PE 7 Public Education: Lahar The City will continue public education programs for all in the City directly threatened by lahars. The following education and awareness options for the inundation areas will be pursued to varying degrees. Vulnerability information Evacuation planning Siren information Radio warning information NOAA All-Hazards Radio training Teacher training on hazards 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Varies depending on program 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM. 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide (Especially Carbon, Nisqually, Puyallup, and White River Valleys) 7. Life of Measure = Continuous 8. Community Reaction = The proposal would benefit those affected, with no adverse reaction from others. PAGE 5-24

135 Priority: V PE 8 Public Education: Volcanic Ashfall The City will continue to expand on its ashfall preparedness and education module stressing individual preparedness for tephra events. The result is to limit structural damage to buildings, limit damage to vehicles, engines and buildings air intake systems, and decrease respiratory problems in the general population from ash inhalation (i.e., distribute masks). 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Varies 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Continuous 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: V PE 9 Public Education: Evacuation Routes The City will continue to pursue the placement of lahar evacuation route maps in all phone books as a means of public education and a standard response aid. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness 2. Cost of Measure = Minor 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: F PE 10 Public Education: Flood The City will continue and expand its public education relating to floods. The purpose is to increase the ability of residents to react appropriately during a flood event and reduce the potential for injuries and/or loss of life and property damage impacts of a flood event through education and outreach. This program employs a variety of means including: Direct mail to flood hazard area residents with information on how to respond to floods and the availability of insurance. PAGE 5-25

136 Offer and advertise technical assistance to farmers and business owners on how to reduce property and livestock losses during floods and on how to prevent hazardous substance spills. Develop and implement a general advertising campaign addressing the potential dangers of flood events and their avoidance, as well as explaining how floodplains and floodways function. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Promote A Sustainable Economy; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment 2. Cost of Measure = Varies depending on staff time, materials and postage 3. Funding Source and Situation = City s Surface Water Management Utility Fee, REET funds. Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) PDEM 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Varies depending on project 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Emergency Management Action Team Mitigation Measures Priority: V EMAT 1 Evacuation Planning: New Roads and Development The City will continue to review evacuation routes to incorporate into the evacuation plan new roads and developments as they are created. Roads identified in the Transportation Improvement Program will be considered in this review. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: SW PE 2 Tree Maintenance Program The City will continue programs to trim tree branches and cut down trees which might threaten the safety of either the citizens or the public infrastructure. The City will expand the program to work with gardening centers, Master Gardeners, and the Pierce County Cooperative Extension to develop a continuing program to assist the public with preventing storm damage through the proper use of vegetation and trimming of PAGE 5-26

137 dangerous limbs. This program will be developed in unison with similar information on fire mitigation through creation of defensible space. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Increase Public Preparedness; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time and materials, equipment 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM; Cooperative Extension (PC Community Services) 5. Timeline = Short-Term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Continuous 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL EMAT 3 Pre-Disaster Business Mitigation Loan Program The City will pursue implementation of the Small Business Administration (SBA) PreDisaster Mitigation Loan Program. The purpose is to make low-interest, fixed-rate loans eligible to small businesses for the purpose of implementing mitigation measures. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation; Promote A Sustainable Economy 2. Cost of Measure = TBD 3. Funding Source and Situation = SBA loan program and possible other grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = SBA with PUYALLUP DEM; PC Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide (business) 7. Life of Measure = Pilot (TBD) 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL EMAT 4 Information Technology-Essential Records Protection The City will continue to ensure that all essential records are protected and/or provided with safe backup. All City Departments will continue to implement their essential records protection schedules. This will be implemented through their disaster record plans. This effort will be tied to the City COOP Departmental Lead.. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time, contract for security oversight 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = PDEM; COOP Departmental Lead 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = All City Departments 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual PAGE 5-27

138 8. Community Reaction = the proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL EMAT 5 Pierce City Information Technology Department Fiber Ring Protection of the City of Puyallup s Information Technology fiber ring which connects all departments to the City information system. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Ensure Continuity of Operations 2. Cost of Measure = Staff time, contract for security oversight 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Information Technology & Communications 5. Timeline = Ongoing 6. Benefit = All City Departments 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = the proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: ALL EMAT 7 Property Acquisition Program: Selection Process The City will consider location of all hazard areas as additional criteria in selecting properties for acquisition as open space, repetitive loss, critical habitat areas, etc. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = Protect Life and Property; Protect the Environment; Establish and Strengthen Partnerships for Implementation 2. Cost of Measure = Minor 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Development Services 5. Timeline = Short-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction = The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Priority: T EMAT 8 Tsunami Critical Area Regulation The City will explore how land use regulations related to new tsunami inundation hazard maps could be implemented. These maps and related hazard information provide new best available science for the tsunami threat facing the City. The strongest mitigation capability the City has resides in land use codes and building codes. There may be a potential link to existing flood hazard regulations and opportunity to provide guidance on PAGE 5-28

139 how to build in these potential inundation areas. Research from Washington State Coastal Communities best practices and from Countries in the Indian Ocean may provide guidance in exploring these regulations. 1. Goal(s) Addressed = N/A. Goals addressed are contingent upon the area-specific mitigation measures resulting from this priority 2. Cost of Measure = Research costs, staff time, materials 3. Funding Source and Situation = Funding could be obtained through local budget or grants. 4. Lead Department(s) = Planning and Land Services 5. Timeline = Long-term 6. Benefit = City-Wide (Especially coastal regions) 7. Life of Measure = Perpetual 8. Community Reaction= The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. Endnotes 1 HMF = Hazard Mitigation Forum; HMC = Hazard Mitigation Committee; PE = Public Education; EMAT = Emergency Management Action Team. These groups are described further in related mitigation measures below as well as in the Implementation Section. They represent the levels and mechanisms of implementation. 2 The mitigation implementation strategy is a four tiered method that emphasizes localized needs and vulnerabilities while addressing the City s as well as multi jurisdictional policies and programs. The first tier is implemented through individual citizen level existing Public Education Programs in the City (for example, at the neighborhood level through the Certified Emergency Response Team or CERT program). The second tier is the Emergency Management Action Team (EMAT), a City wide committee comprised of departmental representatives as well as liaisons from emergency response agencies outside of the City that plan and respond to emergencies or disasters in Puyallup. The third tier is the Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC), a City wide committee comprised of governmental representatives. The forth tier is a more external and multi jurisdictional mechanism, the Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF). 3 Hazard Codes: Where necessary, the specific hazards addressed are noted as follows: A: Avalanche E: Earthquake F: Flood D: Drought T: Tsunami V(l or t): SW: Volcanic (lahar or tephra specific) Severe Storm (wind specific) L: Landslide PAGE 5-29

140 WUI: MM: All: Wild land/urban Interface Fire Manmade to include terrorism All hazards, including some manmade. Where only natural hazards are addressed, it is noted. 4 Pierce City Code, Title PAGE 5-30

141 Section 6 Infrastructure Requirements Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(a): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(b): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? PAGE 6-31 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EDITION CITY OF PUYALLUP ADDENDUM

142 PAGE 5-32

143 SECTION 6 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EDITION CITY OF PUYALLUP INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION The Infrastructure Section is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to RCW Request for public disclosure of this document or parts thereof should be referred to the Public Records Officer for the City of Puyallup. Distribution or changes to this document without the express written consent of the City of Puyallup s City Attorney is prohibited. PAGE 6-33 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EDITION CITY OF PUYALLUP ADDENDUM

144

145 (This page intentionally left blank)

146 Plan Maintenance Procedures SECTION 7 PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS Contents REQUIREMENT... 2 INTRODUCTION... 3 PLAN ADOPTION... 3 MAINTENANCE STRATEGY... 3 INCORPORATION... 4 IMPLEMENTATION... 4 PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS... 5 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTION TEAM (EMAT)... 5 HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE... 6 HAZARD MITIGATION FORUM... 6 PLAN EVALUATION AND UPDATE... 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT... 8 ENDNOTES...11 Requirement Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan---Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. PAGE 7 2 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

147 Plan Maintenance Procedures Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms---Requirement 201.6(c)(4) (ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate Continued Public Involvement---Requirement 201.6(c)(4) (iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. PAGE 7 3 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

148 Plan Maintenance Procedures Introduction THE PLANNING PROCESS UNDERTAKEN OVER THE LAST 24 MONTHS IS JUST THE FOUNDATION OF BREAKING THE DISASTER CYCLE BY PLANNING FOR A DISASTER RESILIENT CITY OF PUYALLUP. THIS SECTION DETAILS THE FORMAL PROCESS THAT WILL GUARANTEE THE CITY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REMAINS AN ACTIVE AND RELEVANT DOCUMENT. THE PLAN MAINTENANCE SECTION INCLUDES A DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTATION CITING THE PLAN'S FORMAL ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE SECTION ALSO DESCRIBES: THE METHOD AND SCHEDULE OF MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING WITHIN A FIVE- YEAR CYCLE; THE PROCESS FOR INCORPORATING THE MITIGATION STRATEGY INTO EXISTING MECHANISMS; AND THE PROCESS FOR INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGHOUT THE PLAN MAINTENANCE. THE SECTION SERVES AS A GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGY. Plan Adoption Upon completion of the City Plan it will be submitted to Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) for a Pre-Adoption Review. The EMD has 30 days to then take action on the Plan and forward it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X for review. This review, which is allowed 45 days by law, will address the federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part In completing this review there may be revisions requested by the EMD and/or FEMA. Revisions could include changes to background information, editorial comments, and the alteration of technical content. Puyallup City Department of Emergency Management (PUYALLUP DEM) will call an EMAT Meeting to address any revisions needed and resubmit the plan with appropriate changes. The City is responsible for the adoption of the Plan after the Pre-Adoption Review by the EMD and the FEMA Region X. Once the City Council adopts the Plan, the Puyallup Director of Emergency Management will be responsible for submitting it, with a copy of the signed resolution, to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at the Washington State EMD. EMD will then take action on the Plan and forward it to the FEMA Region X for final approval. Upon approval by FEMA, the City will retain eligibility for both Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program funds. Appendix A will list the dates and include a copy of the signed Resolution from the City Council as well as a copy of the FEMA letter of approval of the City s Plan. In future updates of the Plan, Appendix B will be used to track changes and/or updates. This plan will have to be re-approved and re-adopted prior to the five year deadline of April 16, Maintenance Strategy PAGE 7 4 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

149 Plan Maintenance Procedures The City maintenance strategy for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation provides a structure that encourages collaboration, information transference, and innovation. Through a multi-tiered implementation method, the City will provide its citizens a highly localized approach to loss reduction while serving their needs through coordinated policies and programs. The method s emphasis on all levels of participation promotes public involvement and adaptability to changing risks and vulnerabilities. Finally, it will provide a tangible link between citizens and the various levels of government service, ranging from community action to the Department of Homeland Security. Through this strategy, the City will continue to break the disaster cycle and achieve a more disaster resilient community. Incorporation There are three main planning groups that make up a majority of planning efforts within the City (and surrounding area) of Puyallup. These groups all coordinate planning and response efforts with Puyallup Emergency Management. The details of the mitigation plan (and actions) have been prioritized and approved by the following groups: 1. EMAT- of which the hazard mitigation committee is comprised. 2. Capital Facilities- Which is the City s planning commission on critical infrastructure. 3. Puyallup Public Works Department- responsible for water, sewer and storm engineering contracts. Having identified local hazards, potential impacts and costs/savings of mitigation planning efforts this will strengthen the City s ability to effectively respond to and recover from disasters. Through this identification and documentation process, responders at the local, regional, State and Federal level should be able to quickly gain insight into the local Emergency Response system. This includes the identification of hazards, response systems in place and current capabilities. Additionally, the pre-identification of these hazards offers the City an ability to hone in on specific areas prone to disasters such as flooding and focus mitigation efforts (i.e. Land Use and Growth Management) to those areas that are repetitively affected. Implementation In order to ensure efficient and effective implementation, the City will make use of its capabilities, infrastructure, and dedicated population. The City will continue to implement its mitigation strategy over the next five years primarily through its annual budget process and varying grant application processes. All programs and entities identified in the Capability Identification Section will serve as the implementing mechanisms within those processes. The Puyallup DEM will work in conjunction with those departments and entities identified in both the Capability Identification Section and under each mitigation measure to initiate the mitigation strategy. For example, any infrastructure-related measures will be implemented through City s Capital Facilities Plan and the various departments involved through their normal budget schedule. Regulatory and land use measures will continue to be implemented through collaboration with the City s Development Services Department and the Planning Commission. Any updates or amendments of the City Comprehensive Plan will include hazard mitigation, as necessary. Other PAGE 7 5 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

150 Plan Maintenance Procedures measures will be implemented through collaboration with the identified jurisdictions/departments listed under each measure s evaluation and through the mechanisms and funding sources identified in the Capability Identification Section. These efforts fall under a broader implementation strategy that represents a city-wide effort. This strategy must be adaptable to change while being consistent in its delivery. The mitigation implementation strategy is a four-tiered method that emphasizes localized needs and vulnerabilities while addressing the City s as well as multi-jurisdictional policies and programs. The first tier is implemented through individual citizen level existing Public Education Programs in the City (for example, at the neighborhood level through the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) or the Citizens Corps Program). The second tier is the Emergency Management Action Team, a committee comprised of city department representatives and liaisons from key agencies who respond in times of emergencies and disasters within the City of Puyallup. The third tier is the Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC), a city-wide committee comprised of governmental representatives. The forth tier is a more external and multi-jurisdictional mechanism, the Hazard Mitigation Forum (HMF). This method ensures that implementation speaks to unique vulnerabilities at the most local level, allows for coordination among and between levels, and promotes collaboration and innovation. Further, it provides a structured system for monitoring implementation. Finally, it is a method that can adapt to the changing vulnerabilities of the City, the region, and the times. These four levels and their means of implementation and collaboration are described below. Public Education Programs At the individual citizen level, public education programs provide the City with a localized mechanism for implementation. This approach to mitigation can adapt to the varying vulnerabilities and needs throughout the City. Public Education Programs are also a means for involving the public in mitigation policy development. Departments conducting mitigation-related programs will provide the existing targeted neighborhoods and special-needs populations a catalogue of mitigation measures from which individuals can choose those that would be most effective in their neighborhoods. For example, currently Puyallup DEM helps neighborhoods form a CERT to better prepare for, and respond to, disasters. This program provides coordination of groups in the community through which individuals can implement home and neighborhood level mitigation measures. The City Surface Water Management Programs includes National Flood Insurance Program recommendations in its public education efforts. We are working with our planning and developing services to developing services to adopt the new FEMA flood maps and to become a CRS community and NFIP participate. Our plan is to continue to attend local meetings on the CRS process and education, and all information on local flooding issues, and continue to educate our community through education and outreach programs on the issues. This not only improves the knowledge of the public in regard to flood issues but could improve the City s CRS rating leading to lower flood insurance rates for the citizens at such time as the City has the capacity to develop a CRS program. PAGE 7 6 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

151 Plan Maintenance Procedures Emergency Management Action Team (EMAT) The EMAT is comprised of individuals from City departments as well as liaisons from outside agencies that respond to emergencies and disasters occurring within the City. The City departments represented are: City Manager s Office, Public Relations, Emergency Management, Police, Development Services, IT & Communications, GIS, Finance, Parks & Recreation, Public Works and the Communications Center. Liaisons from Good Samaritan Hospital, Central Pierce Fire & Rescue, Pierce County, and the Puyallup School District are also represented. This group meets monthly at the Puyallup Emergency Operations Center. This group discusses all issues affecting city-wide response to an emergency or disaster as well as the design and development of exercises and coordinating the development of all emergency and recovery plans along with monitoring progress of these topics to ensure thorough completion of all tasks assigned. They serve as the Hazard Mitigation Committee. This group will continue to meet monthly, and in addition to other tasks discuss what is the most important task, exercise, event, or situation in our community that needs attention from the group. Some of the goals will be setting priorities, exercising resources, and communications. By meeting monthly, long term events such as the Puyallup Fair both in the spring, fall, Emergency Preparedness Fair or other events, can be mitigated as a group or committee. This will include any parts of the Hazard Mitigation Plan that is need updating, after an exercise, or event. Hazard Mitigation Committee The HMC is the body responsible for determining the direction of mitigation policy recommendations and is responsible for reviewing the performance measures and Plan implementation. The HMC represents a city-wide group of hazard experts and government employees whose departments are responsible for many of the implementation activities. This Committee is composed of representatives from all the departments comprising the EMAT as well as representatives from departments identified in the Capability Identification Section as having a role in hazard mitigation. The Committee is responsible for collaborating on city-wide policies and programs on the county-wide level. Meetings occur biennially to coincide with the normal budgeting processes and provide an ample time period for review and adoption of any necessary changes to the implementation schedule. The HMC is responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Plan (discussed below). This monitoring will be conducted by Puyallup Director of Emergency Management and the Emergency Management Coordinator. Including the monthly EMAT meetings to review and evaluate any changes or updates to the plan and a review of the Hazard Mitigation plan done by the Hazard Mitigation Committee on an as needed basis, after a drill, exercise, disaster or as scheduled. Our plan is to review the plan at least 1 time a year as a group in our EMAT (Emergency Management Action Meeting), if possible break out more of the sections to review and if necessary with updates. The HMC will ultimately provide a mechanism for coordination among those departments engaged in mitigation to ensure that a comprehensive and efficient approach be undertaken in the City s efforts at all-hazards mitigation. Puyallup DEM will coordinate HMC activities. PAGE 7 7 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

152 Plan Maintenance Procedures Hazard Mitigation Forum The City Hazard Mitigation Forum partnering with Pierce County HMF, represents a broader and multi-jurisdictional approach to mitigation implementation. The County HMF will be comprised of all representatives from the County and all jurisdictions, partially or wholly, within its borders that have undertaken mitigation planning efforts. The County HMF will serve as coordinating body for projects of a multi-jurisdictional nature and will provide a mechanism to share successes and increase the cooperation necessary to break the disaster cycle and achieve a disaster resilient City of Puyallup. A list of members of the City HMF who have completed, or who have begun the process of completing, Disaster Mitigation Act 2000-compliant plans (DMA2K) can be found in Appendix B. Coordinated by PC DEM, the County HMF will meet at least annually in August. PC DEM will coordinate the Forum meetings. Through this level of cooperation, these jurisdictions can meet all of their mitigation goals. Plan Evaluation and Update Based on new requirements in the Stafford Act put forth in the summer of 2008, for this and further revisions of the mitigation plan, the City has evaluated and updated this plan to incorporate these new requirements as necessary. Furthermore, for additional Stafford Act changes affecting CFR in the coming years, the planning process will incorporate those additional changes. The City of Puyallup 2013 Update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan will guide the City s mitigation efforts for the foreseeable future. This includes the yearly review by the EMAT (Emergency Management Action Team) for any updates from drills, or events. The City has developed a method to ensure that regular review and update of the Plan occur as needed and within a five year cycle. The Emergency Management Coordinator will be responsible for contacting the relevant experts and planners, organizing meetings, and coordinating the efforts below. Puyallup DEM will collaborate with the HMC, individual City Departments and the City HMF to monitor and evaluate the mitigation strategy implementation. Puyallup DEM will track this implementation through the City s GIS database. Findings will be presented and discussed at the annual HMF meeting. Puyallup DEM will review the Risk Assessment Section to determine if the current assessment should be updated or modified based on new information. This will be done during the regularly scheduled reviews of the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis and the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Additional reviews of this Plan will be required following disaster events and will not substitute for the biennial meeting. Within sixty days following a significant disaster or an emergency event which requires a Level 3 EOC Activation, its Director of Emergency Management will provide an assessment that captures any success stories and/or lessons learned. The assessment will detail direct and indirect damages to the City and its infrastructure, response and recovery costs, as part of the standard recovery procedures. This process will help determine any new mitigation initiatives that should be incorporated into the Plan to avoid or reduce similar losses due to future hazard events. In this manner, recovery efforts and data will be used to analyze mitigation activities and PAGE 7 8 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

153 Plan Maintenance Procedures spawn the development of new measures that better address any changed vulnerabilities or capabilities. In addition to the reviews to after the event, annual review of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, by section, and updates as necessary. The Mitigation Plan only establishes the frame work for mitigation efforts. The cities Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of the 44 CFR (4) (ii) through mitigation efforts and practices in a number of other planning and control mechanisms like the City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Transportation plan, Water and Sewer Plan, Storm Drain, and the Growth Management Act. The Critical Lands Ordinances, Engineering Guidelines and other adopted codes are examples of this process. As per 44 CFR 201.6, the City of Puyallup will have an annual update and review after every EOC activation and re-evaluate our plan which will be re-submitted to the State and FEMA with any updates every five years. This process will be coordinated by Puyallup DEM through the City Hazard Mitigation Committee. In 2018 and every five years following, Puyallup DEM s Emergency Management Coordinator will collect updates from the City Hazard Mitigation Committee and submit them to the State EMD and FEMA. Continued Public Involvement The City is dedicated to continued public involvement and education in reviews and updates of this Plan. Puyallup DEM will retain copies of the Plan and will post it on the City Website. 1 The three-tiered implementation structure provides an opportunity for continued public involvement. Public Education campaigns and Community Planning Groups are a means of informing the public on updates and implementation activities and receiving comments and suggestions back from the public. The City held two public forums on August 27 th and September 1 st The Public forums were advertised by the City through a variety of media, including the local newspaper, at public posting locations and a posting on the City s website. After complete approval from all concerned parties including FEMA and the City s Council, this plan shall be posted on the City s website with the opportunity for public comment and suggestions for consideration for our next updated plan. Our Emergency Management Department Plan will be to continue to educate the Public through many ways that has already been outline above. One additional way would be to include education in our outreach program including our annual Emergency Preparedness fair outlining our Hazards and how to be better prepared in our community. We also would encourage community involvement by advertising by with Public Notices our meetings, education on mitigation information through our Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, and senior citizens programs. As we approach the next planning session or updates or major changes to the Hazard Mitigation Plan we would ask for public involvement from the community and advertise on our the City of Puyallup website under the of Emergency Management Web site. In addition upcoming events such as public meetings or forum s for the community, preparedness events the forum is another way to express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about the Hazard Mitigation Plan. PAGE 7 9 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

154 PAGE 7 10 City of Puyallup HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Plan Maintenance Procedures