CHAPTER 19. WHITMAN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX

Similar documents
CHAPTER 20. WHITMAN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #2 ANNEX

Plan Maintenance Procedures

9.2 ALBURTIS BOROUGH. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Alburtis Borough. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

9.24 WEISENBERG TOWNSHIP

9.8 FOUNTAIN HILL BOROUGH

9.35 VILLAGE OF TULLY

Section I: Introduction

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.36 TOWN OF VAN BUREN

Hazard Mitigation FAQ

9.10 HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP

Executive Summary. Introduction and Purpose. Scope

Section 2. Introduction and Purpose of the LMS

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.46 NAZARETH BOROUGH

9.12 VILLAGE OF FABIUS

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax

Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax

PLAN MAINTENANCE. Plan Maintenance Procedures. Monitoring and Evaluation

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.15 MACUNGIE BOROUGH

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.24 TOWNSHIP OF WALPACK

This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Geddes.

9.51 PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.25 TOWN OF ONONDAGA

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.36 HANOVER TOWNSHIP

9.3 TOWN OF CAMILLUS. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Camillus. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT TOWN PROFILE

9.4 VILLAGE OF CAMILLUS

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.27 TOWN OF POMPEY. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Pompey. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT TOWN PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Q1 Do you...(check all that apply).

Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax

49.23 North Plainfield Board of Education

9.11 BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP

9.36 TOWN OF VAN BUREN

9.21 TOWN OF MARCELLUS

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.11 BUSHKILL TOWNSHIP

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.20 VILLAGE OF MANLIUS

BUSINESS PLAN. Adopted: March 26, Business Plan 1

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

According to the U.S. Census, the 2010 population for the Town was 803.

9.15 VILLAGE OF JORDAN

9.8 VILLAGE OF EAST SYRACUSE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.48 NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH

Michael Taylor, PE, CFM Project Manager, AECOM August 25, 2015

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.17 Town of Pharsalia

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

9.28 Village of New Berlin

9.15 VILLAGE OF JORDAN

Adoption of Resolution 2167 for the Adoption and Implementation of the Ada County All Hazards Mitigation Plan

Stevens County, Washington Request for Proposal For A Countywide Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan (Update)

Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax

9.31 Village of Smyrna

MONROE COUNTY 2015 LMS STEP TWO: CHARACTERIZATION FORM

Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax

9.15 Town of Otselic Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Municipal Profile. Population. Location.

9.42 LOWER MT. BETHEL TOWNSHIP

9.30 VILLAGE OF SKANEATELES

Attachment B. King County Flood Control Zone District Work Program

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

T-318. Hazard Mitigation Section TDEM Recovery, Mitigation, and Standards

Stoddard County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan-Five Year Update SECTION 3

9.16 Town of Oxford Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Municipal Profile. Population. Location. Brief History

SECTION 9.6: TOWN OF CLAY 9.6 TOWN OF CLAY

9.27 TOWN OF POMPEY. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Pompey. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT TOWN PROFILE

ANNEX B: TOWN OF BLUE RIVER

Table presents the numerical rating, weighted factor and description for each impact category

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Perspective

Dade County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Sussex County All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Plan Executive Summary

2017 FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program Public Information Meeting. September 9, 2017

School District Mitigation Planning 101 April 28 th 30 th 2014

According to the U.S. Census, the 2010 population for the Town was 4,024.

Role of Disaster Insurance in Improving Resilience: An Expert Meeting The Resilient America Roundtable

Truckloads (at 25 tons/truck) of building debris 90

9.25 VILLAGE OF WINDSOR

APPENDIX H TOWN OF FARMVILLE. Hazard Rankings. Status of Mitigation Actions. Building Permit Data. Future Land Use Map. Critical Facilities Map

G318 Local Mitigation Planning Workshop. Module 2: Risk Assessment. Visual 2.0

SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGIES

9.27 Village of Greene

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Advisory Committee Meeting September 12, 2012

9.19 TOWN OF MANLIUS. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Manlius. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT TOWN PROFILE

APPENDIX 1 FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS

9.8 Borough of Far Hills

Transcription:

CHAPTER 19. WHITMAN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX 19.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Ron McHargue, Fire Commissioner 4941 Lone Pine Road Tekoa, Washington 99033 Phone: (509) 284-7541 E-mail address: None available 19.2 DISTRICT PROFILE Fire District #1 is a junior taxing authority. Three elected commissioners decide how tax funding is appropriated. This Board will assume the responsibility for the adoption and implementation of this plan. The District works in conjunction with the fire department of the City of Tekoa. The purpose of the district is to provide fire protection services to the people of the district and the City of Tekoa. Operations are funded by property taxes. The firemen are volunteers. There are 15 volunteers. Approximately 70 people live in the district and 800 people live in Tekoa. Land Area Owned The fire station is located on two lots in Tekoa at 109 West Poplar Street. Land Area Served 61 square miles List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment 81 Chevy. Fire Truck $55,000 75 Dodge Fire Truck $50,000 73 International $75,500 75 Chevy Water Tanker $45,000 Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment $225,500 List of Critical Facilities (Owned by District) Fire station $115,900 Fire fighting equipment $50,000 Value of Critical Facilities: $165,900 Value of Area Served $28,484,806 19.3 OUTLINE OF AREA SERVED Fire District #1 is located in the northeast corner of Whitman County. The east border extends from the northeast corner of the county along the Washington-Idaho border south for 8-¼ miles. It then goes west 19-1

Whitman County Natural Mitigation Plan; Volume 2 Planning Partner Annexes for 7-¼ miles, north for 6 miles, west for 2 miles, north for 1 mile, west for 1 mile, north for 1-¼ miles, and east for 10 ¼ miles (border between Whitman and Spokane Counties). 19.4 CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED SERVICE TRENDS Based on data from the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Tekoa, and its surrounding areas have experienced a relatively flat rate of growth. The overall population in Tekoa increased at a rate of 0.97 percent per year between 1990 and 2000 and has increased by 2.25 percent from 2000 to 2005. With this rate of growth, the anticipated development trends for Tekoa and surrounding areas are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential development. Based on these population trends, it is anticipated that Fire District #1 will not see significant increases in serviced population in the immediate future. 19.5 NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Type of Event NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment Drought n/a 2001- present Information not available Flood 1100 1/26/96 $1.6 Million for entire county High Winds n/a Oct. 1991 Information not available Volcanic Ash 623 5/21/1980 Information not available Drought n/a March 1977 Information not available 19.6 NATURAL HAZARD RISK/VULNERABILITY RISK RANKING Rank # Hazard type NATURAL HAZARD RISK RANKING Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Structures Vulnerable to the Hazarda Probability of Occurrenceb 1 Severe Weather $3,915 High 2 Wildfire $156,560 Medium 3 Earthquake $23,484 Low 4 Volcano $391.40 Low 5 Flood No measurable impact on structures High 6 Drought No measurable impact on structures c High a. Building damage ratio estimates based on FEMA 386-2 (August 2001) b. High = Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years; Medium = Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years; Low = Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years c. Although this event would not impact structures, it could have an economic impact related to drought s impact on farming. 19-2

19. WHITMAN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX 19.7 EXISTING APPLICABLE NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION CODES, ORDINANCES OR POLICIES None applicable. 19.8 EXISTING APPLICABLE NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION ASSOCIATED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS None applicable 19.9 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS The classifications in the following table address capabilities in all phases of emergency management (preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation). They are used in determining costs for various forms of insurance. The Public Protection classifications apply to standard property insurance. Classifications are on a scale of 1 to 10, with Class 1 being the best possible classification, and Class 10 representing no classification benefit. Criteria for classification credits are outlined in the Community Rating System Coordinators Manual, the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule, and the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. The Firewise program outlines ways for participating communities to promote land uses that reduce fire risk in wildland/urban interface areas. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Program Classification Date Classified Public Protection 9 As of 11/1/2005 Firewise Not Participating n/a 19.10 PROPOSED NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION INITIATIVES MITIGATION INITIATIVES/ACTION PLAN Mitigation Initiative Initiative Addresses Administrating Agency Funding Sources Time Linea Goalsb Objectivesb 1.) Implement outreach program that promotes property protection techniques from the impacts of wildfire. Wildfire General Fund. Possible cost sharing with County Outreach programs Short Term 1, 2, 3 2, 4, 6, 7 2.) Work with the City of Tekoa to update/retrofit water distribution system to include: main looping, main upsizing, increase fire hydrant spacing/distribution, and seismic retrofit of vulnerable mains. All Tekoa City Council Tekoa CIP Public Works Trust Fund Grant Funding: PDM/HMGP Long Term DOF 1, 2 3, 4, 5 19-3

Whitman County Natural Mitigation Plan; Volume 2 Planning Partner Annexes MITIGATION INITIATIVES/ACTION PLAN Mitigation Initiative 3.) Structural seismic retrofit of fire station. 4.) Non-structural seismic retrofit of fire station 5.) Support countywide initiatives that promote the education of the public on the impacts of natural hazards within Whitman County, and the preparedness for and the mitigation of those impacts. This support will be in the form of dissemination of appropriate information to the residents of Whitman County Fire District #1 service area and continuing support/participation in the Whitman County Natural Mitigation Planning Partnership. 6.) Consider voluntary participation in Firewise programs that will provide benefits/incentives to the Citizens of Whitman County Fire District #1 service area for hazard mitigation. 7.) Continue to coordinate and work with Whitman County Emergency Management in disaster response and preparedness. This level of coordination should include: updates to the Emergency response plan, development of a post disaster action plan, training and support. Initiative Addresses Administrating Agency Funding Sources Earthquake Fire District #1 Bond issue Grant Funding: PDM/HMGP Earthquake All Wildfire All Bond issue Grant Funding: PDM/HMGP Time Linea Goalsb Objectivesb Long Term DOF 1, 2 3, 4, 5 Short term 1, 2 3, 4, 5 General Fund 1, 2, 3 2, 6, 7 General Fund Short term 1, 2, 3 2, 6, 7, 8 General Fund Short term OG 1, 2, 3 2, 4, 6 a. Short term = 1 to 5 years; Long term = 5 years or greater, OG = Ongoing program, DOF=Depending on Funding b. See Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 and Table 5-1. 19-4

19. WHITMAN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEX 19.11 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative # PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do benefits equal or exceed costs? Is project grant eligible? Can project be funded under existing programs/ budgets? Priority (High, Med., Low) 1 4 Low Low Yes No Yes High 2 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium 3 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium 4 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High 5 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High 6 4 Low Low Yes No Yes High 7 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High 19.11.1 Explanation of Priorities High Priority A project that meets multiple objectives (i.e., multiple hazards), has benefits that exceed cost, has funding secured or is an ongoing project and meets eligibility requirements for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) or Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). High priority projects can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). Medium Priority A project that meets goals and objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and for which funding has not been secured but project is grant eligible under HMGP, PDM or other grant programs. Project can be completed in the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority projects will become high priority projects once funding is secured. Low Priority A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for HMGP or PDM grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority projects may be eligible for other sources of grant funding from other programs. Prioritization of initiatives was based on above definitions X Prioritization of initiatives was based on parameters other than stated above: X 19.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY Updated HIVA Grant assistance Help in benefit analysis 19.13 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS None at this time. 19-5